Palma initiated legal action against the ninth court of order, a move that set in motion a complex legal and political ripple effect. The case centers on Taras Ostapchuk, a Ukrainian sailor whose name became linked to an audacious early-20s incident aboard the luxury yacht Lady Anastasia, a vessel reportedly under the ownership of a Russian magnate with close ties to the inner circle around Vladimir Putin. The incident occurred on February 26, in a tense moment that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the plaintiff argues that the actions of Ostapchuk amounted to a targeted act of damage that could be attributed to a broader pattern of aggression. In the court’s view, immediate behind-the-scenes challenges—most notably the difficulty of locating Ostapchuk—meant the case could not move forward at that juncture. The court thus issued a temporary dismissal, leaving open the possibility of reinstatement if the person under investigation could be brought before the court. The defense team, meanwhile, signaled that Ostapchuk remained abroad for reasons he personally deemed essential to national service and defense.
What sparked the confrontation was clear on screen. Ostapchuk, described by investigators as the chief engineer of the Lady Anastasia, was seen in footage that captured the intensifying bombardment of Kyiv and other Ukrainian targets. The yacht’s owner, described as a Russian businessman with significant arms-industry links, sought to hold Ostapchuk accountable, arguing that the acts aboard the ship, including the deliberate opening of two ballast valves to trigger flooding, constituted a direct threat to maritime safety and a provocative act during a period of invasion. Yet, despite the damage inflicted on the vessel, competent crew members aboard were able to stanch the leaks, and the ship did not sink. The events prompted a rapid police response and subsequent detentions. Ostapchuk was taken into custody by the Civil Guard, then released after providing testimony in court. He publicly accepted responsibility for the episode and summarized his decision in a formal statement where he described the moment as a frontline commitment to defend his homeland, a declaration he issued to the press shortly after the hearing.
Following his release, Ostapchuk returned to Ukraine the very next day and promptly enlisted in the armed forces to participate in the defense against the aggressor. Back in Mallorca, Ostapchuk’s legal counsel, Neus Canyelles, urged the judge to drop the compensation claim as the matter evolved. The court, in announcing its stance on the case, noted the persistent difficulties in locating the suspect, who had apparently traveled to Ukraine to join the military effort. The presiding judge reiterated that a formal subpoena was required for the individual under investigation, and that attempts to locate him were continuing. In light of these circumstances, the court ordered a temporary halt to the proceedings, allowing more time for due process and for potential future developments in the investigation.
On another front, the luxury yacht remains subject to government action. Authorities have positioned the vessel within a broader framework of measures aimed at confiscating assets owned by Russian oligarchs in response to the invasion of Ukraine. The seizure of assets is presented as part of a coordinated response, intended to apply pressure on the financial networks tied to individuals connected to the Kremlin while signaling a broader policy stance that aims to deter further aggression. This larger legal and political context underscores the delicate balance courts must strike between pursuing accountability for alleged maritime offenses and navigating the practicalities of international tensions that can pull defendants into broader military and geopolitical conflicts.