A major development unfolds in a Moscow case as authorities seek to extend the pre-trial detention of a former Deputy Defense Minister. The request has been filed with the Basmanny District Court and is set to be heard on September 19 at 16:00. The motion argues that keeping the former official in custody for three additional months is essential to preserve evidence, secure ongoing cooperation from witnesses, and sustain momentum in a wide corruption inquiry that also touches on a businessman named Borodin, whose detention extension is under review by the same court. The matter underscores the persistent effort to map the full extent of alleged misconduct and its financial implications as investigators pursue facts and the court weighs the appropriate duration of restraint before trial.
Ivanov’s legal team indicated that the court will weigh the three month extension at the upcoming session, noting that the decision will also determine Borodin’s detention status. The lawyers emphasize that the extension is needed to safeguard investigative steps and to maintain access to key witnesses and materials, signaling the seriousness with which authorities view the ongoing probe and its potential ripple effects across related cases.
In parallel, investigators have submitted a request to extend the detention of Alexander Fomin, described in the case as an associate of the former minister, highlighting the widening reach of the inquiry. Officials stress that the allegations are interconnected, underscoring the need to hold certain figures in custody while probes continue and the investigation charts how various actors are linked to the broader scheme.
Back in April, the detention occurred at the workplace as Ivanov faced suspicions of accepting bribes totaling 1.185 billion rubles. If proven guilty, the former official faces a potential prison sentence of up to 15 years. He has pleaded not guilty, and assets tied to him, his spouse, former partners, and their five children have been seized as part of the investigation, reflecting the seriousness of the charges and the wide net cast by investigators.
Earlier commentary suggested that if released from pre-trial detention, the individual would not disappear and would appear openly in court. The remarks reflect the high stakes and the public interest surrounding the proceedings, which have kept the case in the national spotlight and drawn attention to the governance of defense-related procurement and contracting.
Overall, these developments illustrate an active legal process as investigators pursue facts while the court weighs the proper duration of pre-trial detention as the inquiry advances, with authorities aiming to clarify the full scope of alleged misconduct and its financial footprint within the defense sector.