A Russian attorney, Konstantin Tretyakov, spoke on behalf of blogger Lerchek, whose real name is Valeria Chekalina. He confirmed that a notification from the Federal Tax Service had arrived indicating the start of an audit for the year 2022. The lawyer relayed this information to Super.ru, underscoring that the appearance of an audit does not imply any criminal liability and is, in his view, a commonplace administrative procedure carried out by the tax authorities in routine fashion. He stressed that there were no explicit charges or allegations against his client at that stage, framing the development as a standard step in a larger legal and financial review rather than a sign of criminal wrongdoing. His comments were intended to reassure those following the case that the tax audit was merely beginning and that the process would unfold in its customary, procedural manner.
Tretyakov elaborated that reports circulating about a potential accusation of a 250 million ruble liability were premature and not grounded in the current stage of the proceedings. He noted that Chekalina had not yet submitted the necessary documents to the tax authority and expressed hope that no predetermined punitive amount had been set before due process could evaluate actual figures and circumstances. The lawyer framed the ongoing audit as an opportunity for the taxpayer to present documents and for the authorities to assess income and obligations with clarity, rather than as a verdict or a pre-judgment of guilt. This framing was meant to convey that the emerging facts were still under evaluation and that the system should allow for a fair assessment of all relevant financial movements.
On the Telegram channel 112 stated, it was reported that as part of the new tax audit, Lerchek carried debts totaling roughly 250 million rubles. The publication cited an unnamed source suggesting that Chekalina may have concealed income from individuals connected to her financial operations. This claim, while noted publicly, did not represent a formal accusation or a legal conclusion. It illustrated how information can rapidly circulate in media channels during high-profile investigations, which often leads to speculative narratives before the official documents or statements are available. The situation highlighted the tension between public interest and the rights of a person under review, a dynamic common in prominent tax matters where Russian authorities scrutinize wealth, income sources, and linked entities.
Further reports from Telegram channel Hit in November claimed that Lerchek had settled a substantial debt to the Federal Tax Service, amounting to 296 million rubles. According to that account, the Chekalin family managed to satisfy the accumulated obligation after a prior freeze on the blogger’s account was lifted on November 10. The report also noted that Lerchek paid an additional fine, totaling 311 million rubles, before this larger settlement. The narrative in these updates underscored the complexity and scale of the financial obligations involved, as well as the persistence of enforcement actions even as associations and accounts are stabilized. It also illustrated how penalties and interest can accumulate or be addressed in different stages, reflecting the layered structure of tax enforcement and debt resolution in such cases.
By March, Lerchek had moved into the role of a defendant in a criminal case involving tax evasion. The amount cited for the alleged evasion stood at 311 million rubles, with her spouse identified as having been charged for aiding and abetting the alleged offenses. This development introduced a criminal dimension to what had previously been described as an administrative audit, signaling that investigators had connected the reported financial discrepancies to potential illicit intent. The shift from audit to criminal case marked a significant escalation in the proceedings and brought legal scrutiny into both the public and private spheres of Chekalina’s life. It also raised questions about the broader network of relationships, financial arrangements, and reporting practices that could influence the case outcome.
The broader public conversation around Lerchek, her public profile, and the related legal actions included broader concerns about media representations and political resonance. Earlier associations had linked the blogger with scenarios involving LGBT advocacy and movements that have faced restrictions in the Russian Federation. These dimensions added layers to the publicly discussed context, shaping perceptions of the case beyond the technical financial and legal factors. In this evolving narrative, authorities continued to pursue a careful, evidence-based approach while public interest remained high and dynamic, reflecting how high-profile figures can become focal points for multiple intersecting legal and social threads.