Kaloy Akhilgov, the lawyer and business mentor for blogger Ayaz Shabutdinov, stated that, according to RIA Novosti, Shabutdinov and his defense team have completed acquainting themselves with the materials of the criminal case. He noted that the file comprises about 150 volumes, and roughly one third of them directly touch on the central issues at the heart of the subject under investigation. Akhilgov described the review as a careful, methodical step by step process aimed at isolating the essential facts, filtering out procedural clutter, and mapping how the evidence lines up with the charges as they are framed. The statement underscored that the defense is approaching the review with discipline and focus to prepare for the upcoming stages while staying mindful of court deadlines and procedural requirements. In conversations with reporters, Akhilgov emphasized that understanding the core material early on helps the defense craft a more coherent strategy, anticipate possible prosecutorial moves, and identify any gaps in the record that might need to be addressed before arguments on the merits. He added that the distribution of volume content often includes a significant amount of background material, witness lists, procedural orders, and documentary exhibits, and that navigating this mix requires a careful eye for detail and an ability to separate what is essential from what is supplementary. The attorney also acknowledged that, given the scale of the file, the defense team is prioritizing sections that appear most closely related to the underlying allegations while still keeping a broad view of the entire dossier in case later developments connect seemingly unrelated documents to the charges.
According to Akhilgov, the next moves depend on the prosecutor’s actions. The defense team is waiting for two procedural milestones. First, the prosecutor’s formal approval of the indictment, which would crystallize the charges for the court and set the stage for a more precise judicial review. Second, the transfer of the case to the court so a merits assessment can proceed, allowing judges to weigh the evidence, hear arguments, and determine whether the facts meet the legal standards for the alleged offenses. Akhilgov explained that once the indictment is approved, prosecutors will submit it to the court and the defense will have opportunities to respond, challenge evidence, and shape the timetable for hearings. In practical terms, the timeline depends on timely cooperation between defense counsel and the prosecutor’s office, as well as the court’s scheduling. The process also often involves procedural motions, potential requests to review or suppress certain materials, and strategic decisions about what matters will be argued at the initial hearings versus what can be saved for a full trial. He stressed that the goal is a transparent, orderly transition from file review to judicial examination, with both sides afforded the rights to present their case, challenge the evidence, and protect the integrity of the proceedings. The overall flow mirrors standard criminal procedure where an initial review transitions into a full judicial examination of the facts and legal arguments, and where the pace is influenced by the readiness of the parties, the complexity of the charges, and the capacity of the court to handle scheduling constraints. The defense’s posture, he suggested, will remain focused on achieving clarity about what is charged, what evidence exists in support of those charges, and how to present a coherent, legally sound case in the eventual hearing.
News updates continue to circulate. Observers, analysts, and journalists are closely tracking the case as it unfolds, with officials, the defense, and the media weighing each new development. As facts emerge and positions shift, there may be requests for clarifications, additional documents, or new motions that influence the course of the proceedings. Reporters note that statements from both sides can evolve as the record expands, and the court’s eventual decision will depend on the strength of the evidence and the arguments presented. For readers following this case, staying informed through reliable reports and official communications helps form a clearer picture of how the case moves from filing toward a potential courtroom resolution. In the background, legal observers consider the broader implications of the case for related matters, including how similar proceedings are handled in the jurisdiction and what standards judges apply when weighing documentary exhibits, witness testimony, and expert opinions. While the public interest remains high, the participants are careful to keep the focus on the facts and the law, ensuring that the process remains fair and transparent even as information is updated and the timeline evolves. Updates will continue to arrive as prosecutors, defense counsel, and the court work through the next phases, with close attention paid to deadlines, evidentiary motions, and the contours of the charges.