Vladislav Postnikov, who holds the position of editor-in-chief at Vecherniye Vedomosti, faced a substantial fine of 195 thousand rubles in relation to an article alleging discrediting of the Russian armed forces. This information was reported by the news portal E1.ru, which provided timeline details and official remarks surrounding the case.
On September 8, 2022, reports indicated that police searches were conducted at the journalist’s residence at a time when he was not present. The investigations appeared to be connected to a broader criminal case involving former State Duma deputy Ilya Ponomarev, suggesting a legal framework in which media coverage and political figures were intersecting under heightened scrutiny. The reporting implied that these actions were part of ongoing legal proceedings tied to claims of discrediting the RF Armed Forces, a charge frequently invoked in contemporary Russian jurisprudence to regulate public commentary on military matters.
Further reporting noted that police documentation indicated that the journalist could be compelled to transfer to Ponomarev materials alleged to discredit the armed forces. In the course of the searches, Postnikov’s digital devices and personal items, including phones, a hard disk, a flash card, a smart watch, and two banners, were seized. The searches extended to the homes of other journalists and activists located in Moscow, the Moscow region, Krasnodar, Tyumen, and Rostov-on-Don, illustrating a broader pattern of investigations impacting several media professionals and civic activists in multiple jurisdictions.
Subsequently, Postnikov disclosed that his accounts showed an arrest figure amounting to 5 million rubles under the charge of damage arising from criminal activity. He emphasized, however, that he had never possessed such a sum, and he contended that the state had effectively absorbed a far smaller amount in reality, describing the financial impact as disproportionately high relative to his personal finances. The episode was framed by him as a significant discrepancy between official statements and his actual financial standing, prompting commentary on the proportionality of penalties and the use of asset freezes in political-legal cases.
In the broader context, the situation intersected with concerns about the treatment of journalists and the accountability mechanisms governing press freedom in the country. Former law enforcement officials and other public figures have weighed in on the legal actions that accompanied cases of alleged discrediting, debating whether the charges reflect legitimate enforcement of disciplinary standards or are deployed as instruments of political pressure. The narrative surrounding Postnikov’s case contributes to ongoing discussions about how media transparency, public accountability, and the protection of journalistic work are balanced within the current legal and political environment. [Citation: E1.ru]