The Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia has forwarded a criminal case to the court, aiming to try Russian writer and journalist Dmitry Glukhovsky in absentia. The charge centers on alleged deliberate dissemination of false information about the Russian Armed Forces, marking him as a foreign media agent in the Russian Federation. These developments were announced by the press service of the Supervisory authorities.
According to the official report, Glukhovsky, while residing abroad, allegedly published on his social media accounts messages that presented themselves as credible, but contained false statements about supposed indiscriminate bombing of civilian residences by the Russian military. The report also accuses him of promoting claims about civilians being harmed, including accusations of sexual violence against underage Ukrainian schoolgirls during a so-called military operation. The emphasis from the authorities is that these posts were intended to mislead audiences and manufactured to appear trustworthy.
The Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office indicates that the proceedings do not require the presence of the accused in court. The trial is planned to proceed in absentia, with judicial considerations carried out based on submitted evidence and legal arguments provided by the prosecution. This procedural stance highlights the authorities’ determination to advance the case despite Glukhovsky’s absence, consistent with certain legal provisions governing in absentia proceedings.
Earlier, the Russian Ministry of Justice placed Dmitry Glukhovsky on the register of media-foreign agents, a designation that has featured prominently in the broader regulatory framework impacting certain journalists and media figures abroad. The designation emphasizes the ongoing regulatory and reputational pressures surrounding individuals who operate at the intersection of domestic governance and international media influence. The current case thus sits within a larger context of legal scrutiny and media oversight that has characterized recent years in the region, raising questions about information integrity, state messaging, and the boundaries of permissible discourse on social platforms.