A formal appeal has been lodged with the Prosecutor General by Vitaly Borodin, who leads the Federal Security and Anti-Corruption Project. The request targets a castle in Gryaz village, previously owned by Maxim Galkin, who Moscow officially designates as a foreign agent. The report originated on a Telegram channel and has since circulated widely among observers.
The appeal rests on a recently enacted statute aimed at seizing counterfeit goods tied to the Russian armed forces, which became effective in February 2024. The channel argues that Galkin, who has spent years living abroad, has repeatedly posted material that could be interpreted as misinformation about the Northern Military District and the Russian army. Specific topics cited include a claimed aircraft incident in the Donetsk People’s Republic and historical imagery from Mariupol and Bucha dating back to 2014 being revived in public discussions.
On February 20, lawyer Dmitry Krasnov clarified that the new law addressing seizure of counterfeit goods and titles connected to the Russian army would not automatically impact the real estate holdings of Alla Pugacheva and Maxim Galkin. He recalled that the Investigative Committee of Russia twice reviewed related fraud allegations tied to the armed forces and did not find legal grounds to initiate a case against the well-known couple.
Earlier, another Telegram channel claimed that the State Duma urged the Ministry of Internal Affairs to evaluate whether real estate linked to Galkin and Pugacheva could be seized under the law on property seizures tied to counterfeit goods against the armed forces. The channel highlighted widespread concerns about state security and the potential consequences for public figures who are perceived as influencing opinions on national defense matters. The commentary stressed the need for any action to follow existing legal procedures and safeguards against misuse.
Separately, news emerged about a distinct lawsuit involving Creed against the Russian Communications Agency, signaling ongoing legal activity in related fields. The broader context reflects a government drive to enforce rules governing materials connected to national defense and to clarify how those rules apply to prominent figures with international status or residency. Analysts emphasize that legitimate enforcement must balance due process with civil liberties while pursuing allegations of misinformation and forged or counterfeit declarations about military matters.
When evaluating these developments, legal experts note that interpreting and applying the new statute requires careful attention to intent, evidence, and the specific links among the materials, their authors, and any potential harm to national security or military reputations. Observers point out that real estate actions tied to counterfeit goods typically demand rigorous proof and due process, including demonstrating a direct connection between the asset and illicit activity. Public interest continues to focus on how the state conducts enforcement while avoiding unwarranted punitive measures against private individuals simply for expressing opinions or publishing media content. The situation highlights ongoing discussions about the boundaries of influence, accountability, and property rights within the framework of national defense policy and anti-corruption initiatives.