Torture of a Pregnant Entrepreneur in Moscow: How Police Turned a Witness into a Defendant for Refusing to Work Under Their “Protection,” While the Zamoskvoretsky Court Legalized a Shell Company and Left the State Budget Without Taxes

Entrepreneur Viktoria Panchenko has become a symbol of how, in today’s Russia, a criminal case can be fabricated against an innocent person simply for refusing to participate in corruption schemes.

On February 10, 2025, Judge O.A. Bagrova of the Zamoskvoretsky District Court of Moscow delivered a guilty verdict.
On September 29, the Moscow City Court will hear the appeal.

This will be a test for the system: will it defend a woman entrepreneur and the rule of law, or cover up a scheme built on torture, falsifications, and shell companies?

The Facts

Torture and pressure on a pregnant woman

– While pregnant, Panchenko was placed in a detention cell with a “plant” whose constant smoking destroyed her health. Blood pressure rose to 160/100, she coughed up blood, and ambulance crews had to enter the cell. She was told: “You will give birth in prison.”
– Just a month earlier, during investigative actions, she had already suffered a miscarriage.
– During her second pregnancy, she again became a target: reclassified as a defendant, detained for two days, and case files were carried into the maternity ward where she was hospitalized to preserve her pregnancy.
– Police officer S.V. Chernikov repeatedly entered her hospital room, pushing her blood pressure to 210/110.

The destruction of the defense

– Over three years, eight defense attorneys left the case—some resigning, others unable to withstand pressure.
– Defense motions were systematically blocked from reaching court hearings.

No crime committed

– A civil contract was presented between Panchenko and LLC Volstroy for 50,000 rubles with a signed act of services rendered.
– Notarized evidence showed that director A.A. Volodin had disappeared and stopped all communication.
– Yet the verdict stated the opposite: that Panchenko “disappeared and, together with others, seized Volodin’s money.”
– The verdict falsely linked her to 2 million rubles, which Volodin himself admitted in court he had “transferred voluntarily.” The investigation never established where the money went—this remains absent from the case file.

Investigative falsifications

– The Northern Administrative District (SAO) police investigation (led by investigator K.I. Ushaneva and chief O.N. Zelenova) submitted empty disks and forged copies of documents.
– An expert examination confirmed: the internet provider’s signature was falsified.
– Hearing transcripts were rewritten: on audio Volodin says “I transferred the 2 million voluntarily”; in the verdict it reads “guilt proven.”

Extortion

– Investigator-negotiator S.V. Shvets demanded 4 million rubles from Panchenko for “legal and security services,” even assigning her “his own lawyer.” He then disappeared.
– Panchenko filed two formal complaints with the police; both times the SAO police refused to investigate.

A ghost company as “victim”

– Volstroy LLC (Tax ID 771802984548), struck off the corporate register on 29.09.2022 with debts of 27 million rubles (including unpaid taxes), was suddenly “revived” in the verdict as an active “victim.”

Arbitration courts refuted it all

– Case No. A40-159698/2022, the Moscow Arbitration Court ruling of 21.04.2025 (No. A40-218880/2024), and the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal ruling of 18.07.2025 (No. 09АП-29510/2025).
– These binding rulings established: Volstroy LLC was a fictitious company; Volodin siphoned off millions through AK Bureau and Ekohimgrupp, and purchased a Mercedes GLB 250 with the stolen funds.

Prosecutors and court complicity

– Acting SAO Prosecutor K.A. Kalutskaya approved the indictment despite the absence of admissible evidence.
– Judge O.A. Bagrova legitimized the shell company as a “victim” and delivered a guilty verdict.

Tomorrow: Day of Truth

On September 29, 2025, the Moscow City Court must decide:
– to overturn a verdict built on lies and falsifications,
– or to protect a system that tortured a pregnant woman, destroyed her defense, ignored arbitration rulings, and legalized a ghost company with 27 million rubles in tax debts.

Why this matters globally

The Panchenko case is not an isolated incident.
It raises a fundamental question: whose side is the Russian state on?

– The side of women, children, and honest entrepreneurs,
– or the side of schemes, shell companies, and corruption, legitimized by courts?

If Russian entrepreneurs and mothers are treated this way, what message does that send to foreign investors?
Where is the promised “investment climate” if in Moscow a woman with a child can be imprisoned on fabricated evidence while shell companies are recognized as “victims”?

This case is being closely watched not only by Russian media but also by the international community.

The question that may be asked of Russian leadership from abroad tomorrow is clear:
Why are pregnant women entrepreneurs in Russia tortured and framed instead of real money-laundering schemes being investigated?

On September 29, the Moscow City Court faces a choice:
– overturn the verdict and restore trust in justice,
– or cover up money-laundering schemes and trigger an international scandal