The Skopinsky District Court of the Ryazan Region ordered Viktor Mokhov, widely known as the Skopin maniac, to stay under house arrest for one month and twenty-five days, until October 7. He is under suspicion of concealing a crime tied to a murder in the district.
He was forbidden to leave the building where he lives and to communicate with anyone involved in the case. That includes victims, defendants, witnesses, and experts who may testify or contribute to the investigation.
Additionally, he is barred from sending mail or using online communications, and from making phone calls to emergency services or to anyone other than authorized authorities during emergencies. The restrictions were issued in coordination with regulatory authorities and the investigation team.
On August 10, a criminal case was opened under the statute that covers concealing a crime. Under Article 316, Part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the suspect faces a potential fine of up to 200,000 rubles or imprisonment for up to two years [source: investigative materials].
New criminal case
On August 7, in the yard of an abandoned house in the Skopinsky district, the body of a local resident with signs of a violent death was discovered. Investigators opened a murder case, and the suspect was quickly detained. He admitted involvement and provided a confession to the authorities [source: investigative report].
The victim was identified as 43-year-old Sergei Shchukin, a former prisoner who had recently been released. Reports indicate that Shchukin and Mokhov had met at a social venue prior to the incident. Investigators have determined that on August 2, Air Force Day, those gathered at the house near Mokhov engaged in a drunken gathering. A dispute arose when Evgeny Polishchuk, a 39-year-old acquaintance of Mokhov, accused Shchukin of stealing a goose. Telegram channels quoted that Mokhov implied the theft and Polishchuk struck Shchukin with his elbow, causing fatal injuries. The body was moved to an abandoned courtyard to conceal the crime, and Mokhov later acknowledged helping to relocate the body. Reports describe the body being carried wrapped in a blanket [source: local news summaries].
In the investigation, the authorities stated that to hide the traces of the crime, Mokhov and his accomplice were moved to the courtyard of a nearby abandoned house at night. A criminal case was opened under Part 2 of Article 316 for concealing a crime, as noted by the Investigative Committee of Russia [source: investigative briefing].
Interrogation and confession
On August 11, investigators released a video showing Mokhov during interrogation. In the recording, the Skopin maniac acknowledged assisting in concealing the murder’s traces. He described hearing noises and sounds of blows, followed by a realization that the crime had occurred. The confession aligns with statements reported by local media outlets [source: investigative film and coverage].
Media reports also present remarks from Mokhov’s mother, who described her son as someone who drinks heavily, stays away from work, and sometimes disappears from home for extended periods. She indicated that Mokhov lived a life marked by frequent absences and erratic behavior. The narrative about the family background has circulated in regional coverage, reflecting concerns about his past conduct [source: regional interviews].
During the investigative process, Mokhov demonstrated, in a controlled setting, how he aided in concealing the body. The authorities reference this demonstration as part of documenting the effort to hide the crime [source: law enforcement briefings].
Why wasn’t he detained?
Lawyer Vasily Vorobyov explained to socialbites.ca why the Skopin suspect was not placed in pre-trial detention after the incident at his home. The expert suggested that the decision to impose house arrest rather than detention may indicate a belief that actual prison time could be unlikely, given the circumstances and the nature of the case. He noted that the defendant carries a prior conviction, which could affect sentencing, and that a detention decision might be reserved if the case were expected to escalate toward a more serious charge. The attorney added that house arrest allows monitoring of the suspect’s whereabouts without completely removing him from his typical environment, which can influence the trial’s trajectory [source: interview summary].
The lawyer also mentioned the possibility that charges could be upgraded to complicity depending on what investigators uncover. He emphasized that the outcome hinges on the evidence collected during the investigation and the legal interpretation of the events. He explained that house arrest, in this situation, provides control while still aligning with the known facts about the defendant’s history and behavior [source: legal analysis].
The expert highlighted that house arrest imposes real restrictions and ensures oversight, which can be a practical middle ground when there is a concern about flight risk or potential reoffending. With the defendant already facing conditions like nighttime curfews and travel limitations within the municipality, the court likely favored a measure that restricts risk without automatically shifting toward imprisonment [source: expert commentary].
10 days of detention
On August 9, Mokhov received 10 days of administrative detention for failing to comply with nightly restrictions, specifically staying out past a designated hour. This followed a period during which he was prohibited from leaving his residence after a certain time. The case adds to a long history associated with the defendant, including a notorious earlier crime in which a pair of schoolgirls were abducted and subjected to years of abuse. The victims were held in captivity, and one gave birth to two children during the confinement before escape in 2004. These references appear in local recollections of his past offenses and the prosecutions that followed [source: regional case records].
Mokhov received a prior sentence of 17 years in a strict regime colony and was released in 2021 after serving the full term. He is currently under court-ordered supervision that requires reporting to authorities, prohibits attendance at mass events, restricts nighttime movement, and limits travel beyond the district without permission. He is also barred from communicating with journalists, including online, and from visiting cafes. There is a strict prohibition on proximity to kindergartens, schools, children’s clinics, and hospitals within a specified radius. These conditions reflect the ongoing monitoring tied to his release and the need to prevent potential reoffending [source: correctional records].