A Crimean Military Court Closes Case Against Mobilized Soldier Accused of Abandonment
A court in Crimea has closed a case involving a mobilized serviceman who faced accusations of deserting his unit after his death. The decision was reported by the TV channel RBC and is based on the court ruling itself.
The Crimean Garrison Military Court dismissed the criminal case concerning unauthorized abandonment of a military unit at the request of the defense against the mobilized Igor Akurenko. The proceedings concluded with the case being closed, removing the charges that had been filed against him.
According to the case materials, Akurenko was charged with failing to report for duty to his military unit on time and without valid cause on January 17, 2023, and with evading service until March 20 of the same year. The death of Akurenko was confirmed by a death certificate dated August 15, though his passing occurred on August 11. The cause of death was not stated in the documents released to the public.
The circumstances surrounding Akurenko’s deployment and death remain a matter of record in the case files, including that he was mobilized in Crimea. Notably, there were reports that a person mobilized from Buryatia obtained a death certificate for himself and faced a sentence, though those details are separate from Akurenko’s case.
According to the timeline, after finishing his leave in March, Akurenko did not report back to his military unit for duty. He spent time at the homes of relatives, and military police detained him in May on-site at that residence. The legal process proceeded through the military justice system, culminating in a ruling to terminate the case against him.
In a related instance reported by Novosibirsk authorities earlier, a separate verdict described the fate of another mobilized serviceman. Vladimir Konstantinov, aged 25, was found guilty of desertion on the eve of deployment to what was described as a special operations zone. That sentence illustrates the broader pattern of desertion cases explored by military courts in recent periods. [citation RBC]
There is no public record in these materials of additional charges or outcomes regarding Akurenko beyond the court’s decision to close the case. The matter reflects ongoing complexities in handling duties, leave, and reporting requirements within mobilized military personnel across regions.
Observers note that cases of this nature can involve nuanced questions about documentation, timing, and the interpretation of events surrounding an individual’s absence from service. While the specifics of Akurenko’s case have now been folded into the court’s closure, the broader topic continues to be discussed in military justice contexts as authorities seek clear guidelines for handling desertion claims, especially when death or other factors complicate the documented timeline. [citation RBC]