A military appellate court has upheld the conviction of Andy Stone, who serves as the communications director for Meta Platforms, a firm previously labeled an extremist entity by Russian authorities and consequently banned within the country. The update comes as a court in Moscow finalized the case with a formal ruling reported by TASS from the courtroom.
In the official decision, the panel stated that it found the trial court’s handling of the case lawful and justified, and it rejected the defenses raised by Stone’s counsel. The ruling explicitly notes that the charges and the evidence presented at trial support the verdict as delivered by the lower court.
Stone received a sentence of six years in prison, issued in absentia, reflecting the court’s assessment of the alleged crimes and the laws applicable to acts described as public calls for terrorism. The decision marks the culmination of a legal process conducted under the current framework of anti-terrorism provisions and corporate restrictions that have been a feature of the broader ongoing state actions against foreign entities and their current or former representatives.
Developing coverage indicates that authorities maintain a firm stance on statements or actions deemed to advocate violence or terrorism, particularly when connected to high-profile executives or corporate figures associated with global tech platforms. Observers point to the broader geopolitical context, including scrutiny of international tech companies operating in sensitive environments, as part of ongoing policy debates and regulatory responses. The case continues to attract attention as it unfolds within a landscape of heightened security considerations and legal accountability for expressions that authorities interpret as threats to public safety. The latest update reiterates the court’s adherence to procedure and the gravity of the charges, while leaving room for future legal developments or appeals as defined by applicable procedure and law. The situation remains a focal point for discussions on free expression, state sovereignty, and the responsibilities of multinational corporations in jurisdictions with stringent counterterrorism laws. The ongoing reporting continues to reference the official notes from the courtroom and the brief published by TASS, which provides the principal account of the court’s reasoning and the final disposition of the case.