Former deputy head of the Ministry of Defense Pavel Popov faced fraud charges and was presented with a plea deal by investigators. He declined the offer and chose to respond through the media, sharing his perspective with Kommersant about the developments and the legal options that were on the table. The case surrounding Popov is being treated by prosecutors as a matter involving a criminal group, a designation that includes the former Patriot Park director Vyacheslav Akhmedov and a high-ranking officer identified as Major General Shesterov. The framing of the allegations suggests a coordinated action in 2021 in which the group allegedly diverted funds from the state budget. The total amount mentioned in the reporting is at least 30 million rubles, though the full scope of the supposed misappropriation is subject to ongoing investigation and legal review. According to the article in Kommersant, Akhmedov and Shesterov had already entered into pre-trial cooperation agreements with the Main Military Prosecutor’s Office. Those agreements typically require not only a guilty plea but also an active contribution to the investigative process in order to secure a lighter sentence. Popov was offered the same type of agreement, yet he chose not to accept it and instead opted to proceed through the regular legal channels.
If a plea agreement had been reached, observers anticipated a potential reduction of the prison term by about one-third, a consequence commonly associated with cooperation in such cases. The legal proceedings took a formal turn on September 4, when the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation publicly announced that Pavel Popov — the former deputy chief of the Russian Defense Ministry — had been charged under the fraud article. Popov did not admit guilt and declined to testify in his own defense, a stance that has drawn scrutiny from various commentators and legal observers who关注 the strategic implications of his decision and the broader handling of the case within the defense sector.
Earlier in the summer, on August 29, authorities detained Popov on suspicions related to enrichment at the expense of Patriot Park. The publicly stated assumptions describe a scenario in which the former deputy minister of defense allegedly organized activities connected to the construction and renovation of his own suburban property in the Krasnogorsk district. These actions are said to have been undertaken while work progressed on the development of the associated territory, raising questions about the alignment between official duties and private interests in the context of a high-profile defense sector facility.
There is also mention of Popov’s real estate holdings, with reports noting that he possessed assets valued at more than 500 million rubles. This information continues to circulate in the media and among observers tracking the case, contributing to the ongoing discussion about the scale of wealth linked to public officials under scrutiny and how it intersects with questions about financial conduct, governance, and accountability within state institutions. The evolving narrative reflects the tension between political authority, military administration, and legal processes in a high-stakes environment. As investigators pursue the facts, both prosecutors and defense parties are carefully navigating the complexities that come with high-profile prosecutions in the defense sector. The public record so far indicates a concerted effort to separate personal financial interests from official duties, while prosecutors emphasize the seriousness of alleged fraud-related activities and the potential harm to budgetary resources. The case remains a focal point for discussions about anti-corruption measures, the transparency of state-funded projects, and the mechanisms by which the government oversees activities connected to critical national security infrastructure. Analysts note that any final resolution will likely hinge on the strength of the evidence, the testimonies provided, and the terms of any future agreements that could influence sentencing outcomes and raised standards for governance in sensitive government domains.