This court in Alicante acquitted the sole defendant in a high‑profile case involving assault and kidnapping of a Russian businessman, Aleksei S. The incident occurred at his home on Bursa Street near St. John Beach, where the assailants aimed to seize keys to a cryptocurrency stash valued at about five million euros at current exchange rates. The defendant identified by prosecutors as the supposed mastermind, Denis Katana, was the only person found seated in the courtroom. The court found the alleged interference with the facts to be unproven and questioned the credibility of two witnesses who accused him, including the victim. The prosecution sought a six‑year prison sentence for the attempted assault.
The events unfolded at night on August 16, 2019, on the San Juan beach. Inside the apartment Aleksei had just returned from a trip and was ambushed by three hooded men who allegedly entered with their own key. They restrained him to a chair, subjected him to beatings, and tortured him for nearly two hours in an effort to obtain the cryptocurrency keys. The robbers fled after someone triggered the building’s intercom. Security cameras captured the intrusion, yet none of the attackers could be identified, and no fingerprints or DNA evidence linked them to the scene.
From the outset, Aleksei pointed to Denis Katana as the mastermind behind the operation. Police records show that Denis knew Aleksei would be home that night and possessed copies of the apartment’s access key, a highly restricted numeric log code. Katana claimed he had only one copy of the key and had entrusted it to the cleaning staff so Aleksei could access the apartment that afternoon, with another copy having been interrupted earlier and made unusable. The court noted that there were at least three copies of the keys, and it appeared more people were aware of the victim’s return that night. Denis argued in his deposition that Aleksei fabricated the entire attack and accused him of orchestrating a theatrical scenario. The witnesses testified that the hooded men were acting to hide money tied up with the victim, about 300 bitcoins, as another resident allegedly accused Aleksei of theft. Denis also faced a separate allegation of money laundering through cryptocurrency networks.
conflicting references
The victim testified during the hearing that the attackers had claimed Denis directed them while beating him. The judges found this inconsistent with the Police report, which did not document such a statement when Aleksei returned home and only implicated Denis for having access to one of the keys. The jury acknowledged that fear and confusion after the shock of the attack could explain initial statements, but they argued it was not reasonable to withhold such crucial information once cameras showed how the entry occurred. The judges stressed that any assertion about Denis’s involvement needed corroborating evidence and cautioned that the testimony alone could not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The testimony that Denis had sent the hooded men home to claim the money remained a point of doubt, even after Denis’s arrest.
The other witness accusing Denis was a fellow Russian businessman, Dimitri, who was with the defendant at the time of his arrest. Days later Dimitri told investigators that Denis had admitted sending the attackers to Aleksei, though he later claimed they were supposed to speak to him instead of assault him. At the trial, Dimitri said Denis admitted sending the hooded men to retrieve the money, but he feared potential reprisals for speaking out. The court labeled these late statements as unreliable and noted fears of retaliation, yet found no sufficient corroboration to convict Denis on this basis.
The chamber concluded that these late statements undermined the witnesses’ credibility, and they questioned whether Denis had learned of the case’s details through other means. They invoked the principle in dubio pro reo, stating that the absence of decisive incriminating evidence warranted acquittal when reasonable doubt exists.
Sentencing in the National Court
Denis Katana remains in custody, having been sentenced previously to a four‑year term by the National Court for a separate offense. The court found him guilty of defrauding banks worldwide by deploying a computer virus capable of manipulating ATM networks from afar. He did not receive a kidnapping conviction in that proceeding. Katana admitted guilt in the computer‑fraud charge during a compliance hearing in July 2021. Throughout the case, the defense has contended that Aleksei and the other witness were connected to money‑laundering schemes, an assertion that has generated various cross‑charges in Madrid courts.
Sources indicate the proceedings and arguments involved several cross‑charges, sometimes overlapping, with attempts to untangle them across different courts. The overall outcome in Alicante reflects the court’s assessment that credible, corroborated evidence was insufficient to convict on the kidnapping or related conspiracy charges as charged in that particular proceeding .