The case surrounding the leader of the Russian Volunteer Corps, Denis Kapustin, and other linked figures continues to unfold as prosecutors pursue long sentences tied to the Bryansk region occupation. Kapustin, along with actor Kirill Kanakhin and several others, filed in absentia appeals against their life terms. These motions have been forwarded to the Military Supreme Court for review, signaling a new stage in the legal process. Reports described the development as part of ongoing proceedings in which formal challenges to prior rulings are being considered by the country’s military judiciary system.
Defence teams representing Anton Zyryanov, Kirill Kanakhin, Denis Kapustin, and Alexey Ogurtsov formalized a challenge to the decision handed down by the 2nd Western District Military Court on November 14, 2024. The appeal was received by the Military Appeals Court, indicating that the defense has entered a newer phase of the case where appellate review will examine whether the original verdict met legal standards and due process requirements. A spokesman for the inquiry noted that the defense submission aimed to overturn or modify the prior ruling, though the precise grounds were not disclosed in detail in the public summaries.
In the same update, officials stated that the defense complaint lodged by Sergei Galanov, another participant in the case, was not registered for consideration. It was also noted that none of the convicts themselves submitted direct complaints to the authorities. This detail underscores the complexity of the case and the procedural rules that govern how and when appeals may be filed by defendants who are not physically present at trial or who rely on legal counsel to act on their behalf.
On December 5, a Moscow court issued a decision related to Denis Kapustin, with reports indicating that the matter did not favor Kapustin in that instance. The ruling reflected the ongoing tension between the defense strategy and the appellate process in cases tied to acts described as terrorism or violence linked to regional territorial disputes. The outcome illustrates the broader pattern of review that follows initial in absentia verdicts in high-stakes criminal cases carried out in the country’s military judiciary framework.
Earlier reports had indicated that Kapustin and Kanakhin had been sentenced to life imprisonment in absentia for their alleged roles in the Bryansk operation. The sentence in absentia means the defendants were tried and sentenced without their physical presence, a practice used in certain jurisdictions for cases involving national security concerns or where defendants evade the proceedings. The implications of an in absentia sentence can include limited immediate avenues for parole or appeal, depending on the legal provisions of the time and the specifics of the verdict.
Background details show Kapustin’s involvement extended to actions in 2022 and 2023. In 2022, he was connected with an attempt to sabotage a fuel and energy complex facility in the Volgograd region, aimed at triggering disruption to critical infrastructure. The following year, he participated in armed activity within Bryansk as part of the RDK, which is designated by Russian authorities as a terrorist organization. The founder of the group faces charges under more than ten articles of the Criminal Code, reflecting a broad spectrum of alleged offenses linked to violent acts and organized criminal activity. These elements provide context for the gravity of the charges and the expectations surrounding the appellate process, as authorities pursue a comprehensive examination of the allegations and the corresponding legal actions.
In another development linked to the case, a news report mentioned an incident involving a student who was detained after photographs surfaced showing members of the RDK on school grounds, accompanied by notes reading “Hero of Russia.” This detail illustrates the wider social and educational context surrounding the case, highlighting how conflicts tied to the organization have resonated beyond the battlefield and into community spaces. Authorities have indicated that the case remains under close scrutiny as legal authorities assess the evidence and determine the appropriate paths for ongoing judicial review.