Enforcement proceedings were initiated against journalist Svetlana Prokopyeva

In Pskov, bailiffs initiated enforcement proceedings against journalist Svetlana Prokopyeva due to a fine of 500 thousand rubles in the case of justifying terrorism, which she had already paid. This was reported by MBKH Media from the words of the journalist herself.

Prokopyeva received a letter saying that enforcement proceedings would be initiated on April 12 due to a “debt” of 500 thousand rubles, despite the fact that the verdict in the case came into force on February 2, and on February 25 Prokopyeva paid the fine.

“They didn’t have any complaints against me or anything else. It’s possible that this is our usual Russian bureaucracy, where everything works through the cracks and there are only bravura reports about how well everything works for us,” the publication quotes Prokopieva as saying.

• In July 2020, Svetlana Prokopyeva was fined 500 thousand rubles, having been found guilty of justifying terrorism (Part 2 of Article 205.2 of the Criminal Code). The case was opened because of the radio broadcast of “Echo of Moscow in Pskov,” during which the journalist discussed the possible motives of Mikhail Zhlobitsky, an anarchist who blew himself up in the reception room of the Arkhangelsk FSB Directorate at the end of October 2018. On air, Prokopieva said that Zhlobitsky could have been driven to such actions by the repressive policies of the state.
• On the morning of October 31, 2018, in the FSB building in Arkhangelsk, 17-year-old local resident Mikhail Zhlobitsky detonated a bomb. Three employees were injured, the young man himself died. A few minutes before the explosion, a message about the attack appeared in the telegram open chat of “Rebel Rebel”. A criminal case was opened regarding a terrorist attack.
• There are at least 25 known criminal cases of “justification of terrorism” initiated in the wake of the explosion in the Arkhangelsk FSB Directorate: the case of Evgeniy Gavrilov ; the case of Svetlana Prokopyeva ; the case of Ivan Lyubshin ; the case ofAlexey Shibanov ; the case of Nadezhda Belova ; the case of Vyacheslav Lukichev ; the case of Lyudmila Stech ; the case of Ekaterina Muranova ; the case of Konstantin Vasilyanov ; the case of Alexander Kovalenko ; the case of Galina Gorina ; the case of Pavel Zlomnov ; the case of Alexander Dovydenkov ; case of Nadezhda Romasenko; the case of Alexander Sokolov ; the case of Alexander Merkulov ; the caseof Sergei Arbuzov ; the case of Oleg Nemtsev ; case of a resident of Omsk (name and surname unknown); the case of Sergei Sizykh ; the case of Valery Klimenchenko ; the case of Dmitry Nadein ; the case of Oleg Elansky ; the case of Maxim Smolnikov ; case of Vladimir Boboshin .