Andrei Gatsunaev, married to actress Kristina Babushkina, faced a substantial fine of 200 thousand rubles following a court decision reported by the Telegram channel 112, which cited the Zamoskvoretsky court. The case unfolded with Gatsunaev fully acknowledging his guilt as the proceedings moved forward and a public record established the consequences of his actions. The legal outcome reflects a breach of criminal norms that officers and prosecutors emphasized in the proceedings, highlighting the seriousness with which drug-related offenses are treated in the jurisdiction.
The timeline of events shows that on June 16, law enforcement stopped the vehicle in which Babushkina and her husband were traveling. A routine search conducted during the stop uncovered a package containing narcotic substances weighing 0.53 grams. In a dramatic moment during the arrest, Gatsunaev attempted to consume the drugs and, in a further act of resistance, bit a traffic police officer on the finger. This behavior was noted as part of the charge structure and added a layer of complexity to the case, illustrating the high-tension nature of drug possession investigations and the ways in which suspects sometimes react under immediate pressure.
Kristina Babushkina, not as a defendant but as a witness, was drawn into the investigation surrounding her husband’s alleged drug possession. She was questioned by investigators from the Investigative Committee, and her testimony contributed to the developing factual matrix that the authorities used to assess the situation. The involvement of a public figure in such a case often brings heightened attention from media and the public, though the legal processes continued to follow established procedures to determine culpability and relevant obligations for all parties involved.
As the case proceeded, Gatsunaev was placed under house arrest, a measure chosen within the framework of applicable Russian criminal procedure. He faced charges under Part 1 of Article 228 of the Criminal Code for drug trafficking and Part 1 of Article 318 for the use of violence against a law enforcement officer. Throughout the proceedings, the defendant maintained a position of not guilty, and he declined to testify, consistent with the rights afforded to individuals in such cases. The dynamic between the accused and the state’s investigative apparatus remained a focal point as prosecutors sought to present a complete account of the incident.
Following the initial shock of the arrest, the actor resumed professional activities later in the year, returning to work at the end of August. This resumption marks a transition from the immediacy of the courtroom and investigative phases to the ongoing obligations of public life and artistic work. The public attention around the case continued to frame discussions about personal accountability, the responsibilities of public figures, and the impact of legal processes on professional careers.
Within the broader context, there were mentions of prior professional associations, including discussions about collaborations with notable figures in the music and entertainment landscape, such as Slava Marlow. These remarks appeared in various media reports as part of coverage about Babushkina and her husband, offering a window into career considerations and potential industry connections that sometimes surface in high-profile legal narratives.