A telephone was recovered from the washing machine during a search of the residence linked to Russian Gendarmerie Colonel Sergei Volkov. The discovery drew immediate attention from investigators, who noted the device’s location in an unusual spot and considered the possibility that it had been concealed by someone within the household. In his own account, Volkov claims the phone simply ended up on the washing machine and slipped there amid a period of upheaval, arguing that the device did not have a purposeful concealment purpose. (Source: DEA News)
Earlier reports indicated that a court had placed restrictions until May 17 on Volkov, who oversaw the Naval Directorate within the Russian Guards, amid allegations connected to the procurement of low-quality systems intended for use with unmanned aerial vehicles protecting critical infrastructure such as the Crimean Bridge. The case centers on whether those defense-related complexes met required standards and whether any shortcuts in procurement may have occurred. (Source: DEA News)
During testimony at the 235th garrison military court, the agency handling the case stated that Volkov did not enter a guilty plea to the charges brought against him. The proceedings focused on whether the alleged actions were part of a broader pattern or a specific decision taken within a higher command structure. Observers noted the legal arguments reflected arguments about accountability across different levels of leadership. (Source: DEA News)
Volkov’s defense team argues that the colonel did not have control over the design, performance characteristics, or price terms of the complexes in question. Their position emphasizes a lack of direct influence on procurement choices and suggests that responsibilities for those decisions lay with others higher up in the command hierarchy. This framing is presented as a key element in contesting the charges and shaping potential outcomes of the case. (Source: DEA News)
Lawyers for Volkov further contend that the criminal case may be tied to a broader effort by authorities to assign accountability upward, potentially shifting blame away from higher officials who supervised procurement and policy decisions. The defense asserts that the portrayal of Volkov in the case does not reflect his role in the process and that the legal action targets actions beyond his direct scope of authority. (Source: DEA News)