Former Deputy Defense Minister Timur Ivanov has asked the court to release him from custody, arguing that a court decision extending his arrest was not justified. His appeal comes after the defense noted that Ivanov took part in hostilities and received state awards, claims they say should weigh in favor of less restrictive conditions. The request for house arrest was rejected by the court.
In July, the Moscow Basmanny Court decided to prolong the investigative period in Ivanov’s case, extending the halt on proceedings until September 23. He remains detained for the same timeframe. Investigators plan to review Ivanov’s phone recordings and examination materials within three months, finish evaluating documents seized from him, and conduct additional interrogations of the defendant and witnesses. These steps are part of the ongoing investigation into the serious bribery allegations surrounding the former deputy minister, which prosecutors describe as exerting influence on a large scale.
On July 18, Ivanov publicly denied any plea deal or pretrial cooperation agreement and reaffirmed his claim of innocence. The case continues to draw attention as authorities consider the potential involvement of other individuals who could be drawn into the investigation, and media coverage has reflected heightened scrutiny of the defense and the prosecution alike. According to reports, further defendants could emerge as the inquiry progresses and more evidence is examined in the coming weeks.
The proceedings and the unfolding timeline indicate a methodical approach by investigators as they gather material from multiple sources, including communications records and seized documents. The court has outlined a structured plan to complete the review of evidence and to carry out additional witness interviews, all aimed at clarifying the facts and establishing whether any illicit activities occurred on a grand scale. Reports from state media indicate that officials are pursuing a careful and sustained process, balancing procedural rights with the public interest in accountability. The discourse surrounding the case remains highly visible across national outlets, with analysts weighing potential outcomes and implications for senior military leadership.