The case of Oleg Artemov in Chelyabinsk

Case History

At the end of February 2024, the investigator of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, Aleksandr Chepenko, opened two criminal cases at once against another resident of Chelyabinsk, Oleg Artemov. The believer was suspected of participating in the activities of an extremist organization and its financing due to the fact that he participated in worship services, and also paid for a video conferencing application. Artyomov’s phone and bank cards were seized, and he himself was placed under recognizance agreemnet.
Timeline

  • #
    February 29, 2024 Case initiated Art. 282.2 (2) Art. 282.3 (1)

    Based on the materials separated from the case of Maxim Khamatshin , the investigator of the Investigative Committee, Colonel Alexander Chepenko, initiates two criminal cases against 28-year-old Oleg Artemov - on charges of participation in the activities of an extremist organization and its financing.

    According to Chepenko, the believer "in the period from 06.09.2017 to 08.09.2022 ... at least 5 times intentionally... took part in the activities of a religious association... in the form of participation in religious meetings... conducting conversations with residents of Chelyabinsk, demonstrating and watching educational videos".

    Artemov is also suspected of financing the activities of an extremist organization, since he allegedly "made at least 20 payments ... by paying for "Zoom"... to ensure the holding of meetings of members of the said religious association by videoconference."

  • #
    March 6, 2024

    In the investigator's office, bank cards and a smartphone are seized from Artemov.

  • #
    March 12, 2024 Interrogation Recognizance agreement

    After a 15-minute interrogation, investigator Chepenko takes Oleg Artemov on his own recognizance. During interrogation, the believer declares that he does not agree with the suspicions and enjoys the right not to testify against himself and his loved ones. He also requests that the case be dismissed for lack of corpus delicti.