The reported incident centers on a Moscow publishing house named Zakharov, which recently posted on social media to describe an interaction with law enforcement tied to Boris Akunin, a widely read author whose works have sparked controversy in various circles. The post notes that two investigators from Russia’s Investigative Committee arrived at a warehouse in order to seize copies of Akunin’s books, which some parties have labeled as extremist material. The post stresses that the material in question does not appear to contain any extremist content or calls for extremism, raising questions about the justification for any seizure action and the balance between authorial works and official bans.
The message from Zakharov describes a tense moment at the warehouse, suggesting that access would be granted only if someone was present to open the doors. The posting frames the situation as a procedural encounter, highlighting that a defense attorney arrived and was allowed entry, while signaling that the ensuing dialogue between the investigators and the publisher touched on the formal steps required to obtain or deny access to the contested works.
Zakharov further explained that the Investigative Committee officers requested the key to the warehouse to seize copies of Akunin’s books. The publishing house emphasized that there was no demonstrable reason to classify the books as extremist, and therefore, preventive access should not be warranted. The response from Zakharov conveyed a firm stance against surrendering the warehouse key, underscoring a commitment to due process and the presumption of lawful handling of materials unless compelling evidence dictates otherwise.
The events came to light on December 19 when investigators reportedly visited the Zakharov publishing house in Moscow, a location that has historically published Akunin’s works. A representative for Zakharov later confirmed to RTVI that the search activity related specifically to Akunin’s publications, illustrating how literary properties can become focal points in broader regulatory debates about classification and public safety.
In response to the developments, Akunin offered remarks about the ongoing situation, noting that the Zakharov publishing house is the same venue that publishes his books. The author expressed concern that law enforcement may extend similar measures to other publishing houses, and even to cultural venues where his work is presented. Akunin suggested that searches could extend to theater venues, bookstores, libraries, and film studios associated with his productions, indicating a wider horizon of potential regulatory scrutiny that could affect artistic spaces beyond the publishing realm.
The situation drew comments related to other figures in the Russian cultural sector as well. Akunin referenced Yandex, which has recently released the series Azazel, and shared concerns regarding prominent actors and media personalities. The statements named Vladimir Mashkov and Dmitry Pevtsov, while signaling unease about Konstantin Ernst and the financial questions surrounding Nikita Mikhalkov’s film adaptations. The remarks conveyed an atmosphere of heightened sensitivity within the cultural and entertainment industries amid ongoing regulatory discussions.
Previously, Akunin had initiated a criminal case against discrediting the Russian army, a development that has intensified public attention on how literature and media are treated within the broader framework of national messaging and legal boundaries. The interplay between artistic expression and state-sanctioned narratives remains a contentious space, with publishers, authors, and performers navigating evolving guidelines that influence what audiences can access and discuss openly in public and private settings. The episode with Zakharov represents one example of how these tensions translate into real-world actions targeting literary artifacts and the spaces that house them, from warehouses to galleries to performance venues, and the broader ecosystem that supports creative work.