Alekseev Andrei Igorevich, born on March 28, 2001, a resident of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), and a conscript serving in the Pacific Fleet. At the time of his arrest, he was stationed in Vladivostok. On March 1, 2023, he was sentenced under Part 1 of Article 205 of the Russian Criminal Code (“Terrorist Act”) to 7 years of imprisonment, with the first 2 years to be served in a prison and the remainder in a high-security penal colony. He has been in custody since July 18, 2022..
Information about an attempted arson of a military enlistment office building located on Uborevicha Street in Vladivostok became known early in the morning of June 8, 2022. Local news agencies reported that the building had been cordoned off since the morning, “servicemen were replacing boards damaged by the fire and dispersing onlookers.” It is worth noting that the enlistment office is located in a separate wooden two-story building constructed in the early 20th century and designated as an architectural landmark.
Initially, reports stated that two young men had taken part in the arson, which occurred at about 4 a.m. on June 8—one threw a bottle with an incendiary mixture into the building, and the other filmed the incident on a mobile phone. It was also reported that the building sustained no serious damage, the fire was quickly extinguished, and the flames only charred a few wooden panels near the entrance.
The head of the Primorye police said that the arson case had been placed under control, the arsonists were being sought, and they could face up to five years in prison—clearly, the case was initially not opened under a terrorism article. The media reported that CCTV footage from a camera installed at the enlistment office had been seized; the footage captured a young man in a hood lighting a “Molotov cocktail” and running away.
The suspect in the arson—a serviceman named Andrey Alekseev—was detained more than a month later, on July 18, 2022. That same day, the Telegram channel Mach, close to law enforcement, reported that the “pyromaniac” “turned out to be a 20-year-old student.” This report was the first to use the word “terrorist attack,” stating that the young man faced up to 15 years in prison.
On July 20, a video of the young man’s confession began to circulate in the media. The same video, clearly edited by law enforcement, contained fragments of the arson footage from the security camera and a screenshot of Alekseev’s correspondence with an unknown person in the Telegram messenger.
According to the version presented in the video, the events unfolded as follows. Andrey Alekseev posted a job-search message in one of the Telegram channels. Some time later, an unknown man named Albert, with the Telegram account “Saigon,” contacted him in the same messenger. In the screenshot shown in the video, the following exchange took place late on June 6:
Saigon: Hi, do you need a job?
Alekseev: Hi, yes. What kind of job?
Saigon: Where are you from? And what amount do you need?
Alekseev: From Vladivostok, I need a large amount.
Saigon: How much exactly, and how fast?
Alekseev: 120, the sooner the better. What kind of job is it?
Saigon: You’ll put on a small welcome fire show for our competitors.
Alekseev: Works for me.
Their next contact, judging by the screenshot, took place on June 8. Saigon wrote: “Are you online?” The messenger shows a missed call. Later that same day, Alekseev sent a Bech32-format Bitcoin address.
Immediately after this, the screenshot shows the date June 10, 2022, and Saigon’s message: “Hello friend.” Whether there was a reply, how the correspondence unfolded, and whether investigators possess further messages remains unknown.
In the video, Alekseev states that “Albert” offered him to “commit a terrorist act against the military enlistment office of the city of Vladivostok.” He continues: “Albert’s proposal interested me from the point of view of financial gain. On 08.06.2022 I committed the arson. My terrorist act was not completed, and the fire was extinguished. I regret what I did and promise never to repeat such actions.” One may assume that Alekseev believed he was being accused of an attempted terrorist act. There is no information in the video about any accomplice. In the published footage from the crime scene, only one young man in a hood can be seen lighting—not a Molotov cocktail, but a small piece of cloth—and throwing it near the entrance of the enlistment office. The recording ends there, making it impossible to determine whether a fire occurred at all.
Some additional details were reported by Vremya MSK, citing “law enforcement agencies of Vladivostok.” It was reported that on July 18, a search was conducted “at the place of residence” of Andrey Alekseev, during which his mobile phone and a video recording of the arson were seized.
The publication writes that “Albert” told Alekseev that he was “from Ukraine” and proposed committing a “terrorist act,” specifically arson attacks on military enlistment offices in Vladivostok. The client allegedly sent a link to a video that discredited the Russian army and “stated that every resident of Russia could stop this special military operation.”
The article also clarifies the payment scheme offered by the client: “for the first ‘small welcome fire show for our competitors’—10–15 thousand rubles, and for the next one—90 thousand. There was one condition: everything had to be recorded on video as proof.” The publication claims that a friend of Alekseev filmed the arson and that Alekseev sent the video to the client. It also claims the client was dissatisfied with Alekseev’s performance: allegedly, “Saigon said that in such matters one should not show initiative but follow instructions strictly. If he had followed the instructions, the old wooden building would have ‘caught fire quickly.’ The client refused to pay.” No source for this detailed information is provided.
No further information about the alleged second participant who filmed the crime ever appeared.
Alekseev’s criminal case reached the 1st Eastern District Military Court in Vladivostok in November 2022, classified under Part 1 of Article 205 of the Russian Criminal Code (“Terrorist act”). Had investigators discovered that the crime was committed by a group of individuals by prior conspiracy, it would have been classified under Part 2 of Article 205.
Judge Dmitry Zhdanovich examined Alekseev’s case over three hearings and delivered a guilty verdict on March 1, 2023. A press release from the court states that Alekseev committed his crime while serving compulsory military service. “The court established that he agreed to set fire to one of Vladivostok’s district military enlistment offices for a reward of 100,000 rubles. The proposal to commit the terrorist act was received during a messenger conversation from persons opposed to the special military operation and hindering the partial mobilization. By sheer chance, the fire was contained, and the building sustained minimal damage.”
“The serviceman was sentenced to seven years of imprisonment in a strict-regime penal colony, with the first two years to be served in prison. The sentence was pronounced in the presence of his fellow servicemen, including those who had returned from the area of the special military operation.”
The sentence was not appealed and entered into legal force.
Based on the available information, Andrey Alekseev did not and does not deny that he agreed to set fire to the enlistment office for financial gain. Thus, the very fact of the attempted arson is not disputed.
However, there are serious doubts that Alekseev knew his interlocutor was “from Ukraine” or that they discussed stopping the hostilities in Ukraine. There is no reliable evidence of this. The court’s press release mentions only Alekseev’s mercenary motive; the anti-war motive is attributed solely to his interlocutor. Likewise, in Alekseev’s own video-recorded testimony, only financial gain is mentioned. In the available screenshot of the chat, the “job” offered to Alekseev is described as: “You’ll put on a small welcome fire show for our competitors.” If genuine, this screenshot shows no mention of the special military operation or stopping it—at least up to June 10 (and any further correspondence, if it existed, is not shown). No propaganda video appears to have been sent.
It is also worth noting that early after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, criminal cases involving arsons or attempted arsons were mostly opened under Article 167 Part 2 of the Criminal Code (“Intentional destruction or damage to property committed in a hooligan manner by arson, explosion, or another dangerous method”) or under various parts of Article 213 (“Hooliganism”). After the announcement of partial mobilization on September 21, 2022, the representative of the Main Organizational and Mobilization Directorate of the General Staff, Rear Admiral Vladimir Tsimlyansky, announced that arsonists would be charged with terrorism, entailing much longer prison terms. However, this did not become universal practice; in many regions cases continued to be opened under less severe articles. Between February 2022 and July 1, 2025, according to the AvtozakLIVE project, at least 316 arsons of state facilities—mainly military enlistment offices—were recorded, but only 127 were classified as terrorism cases.
Alekseev’s case became one of the first to be classified this way.
In general, the classification of specific attacks often depended on factors unrelated to the incident itself—for example, on which agency investigated the case. As Mediazona noted, the FSB tended to bring terrorism charges, while the police and Investigative Committee used less severe articles. In some regions, such as Krasnodar Krai and Rostov Oblast, arsons were more often classified as terrorist acts.
According to independent research (Mediazona, AvtozakLIVE), punishments for attempted arsons of enlistment offices and administrative buildings that took place after the start of the war range from fines to 19 years in a strict-regime colony. Some defendants received suspended sentences of 1.5–2 years; others were sentenced to forced labor. Sentences of 5–13 years are most common. We believe that such inconsistent classification of arson cases reflects arbitrary application of the law, violating Article 19(1) of the Russian Constitution, which guarantees that “all are equal before the law and the courts.”
Approaches to classifying attacks on enlistment offices have shifted over time but were never uniform. Since the mobilization campaign in 2022, arsons of enlistment offices have increasingly been treated as terrorist acts. This clearly indicates a political motive intended to intimidate opponents of the war, including those prepared to take part in radical protest actions.
In our view, classifying most of these attacks as terrorist acts is unjustified. A terrorist act is a crime that requires direct intent. A terrorist act must have the goal of intimidating the population and thereby influencing government decision-making. Arsons of enlistment offices and other facilities were committed with other motives. During investigations and trials, the intent to commit a terrorist act and the objective element—fear among the population—were generally not proven. The state chose to apply disproportionately harsh criminal charges with the aim of intimidating opponents of the war. Such classification appears politically motivated and aimed both at frightening society with excessively harsh punishment and at stigmatizing these protest actions with the term “terrorism.” Moreover, the use of the terrorism article made it possible to launch further repressive cases against individuals accused of “justifying terrorism.”
Part 1 of Article 205 of the Criminal Code reads: “The commission of an explosion, arson, or other actions that intimidate the population and create a danger of loss of life, significant property damage, or other grave consequences, with the aim of destabilizing the activities of governmental bodies or international organizations or influencing their decision-making, as well as threats to commit such actions for the purpose of influencing the decision-making of governmental bodies or international organizations.”
Thus, the qualifying elements necessary for a terrorist act include:
– intimidation of the population
– danger to life, significant property damage, or other grave consequences
– the intention to destabilize government activities or influence government decision-making
All these features must be present; they are cumulative. Importantly, terrorism requires direct intent, meaning all elements must fall within the perpetrator’s intent.
According to Paragraph 2 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 1 of February 9, 2012, “Actions may be recognized as intimidating the population if, by their nature, they are capable of arousing fear among people for their lives and health, the safety of loved ones, the preservation of property, etc. The danger of loss of life, significant property damage, or other grave consequences must be real, determined in each case by considering the place, time, tools, means, method of committing the crime, and other circumstances (information about the number of people in the vicinity, the power and destructive capacity of the explosive device used, etc.).”
Based on available information, none of these criteria were met by Alekseev’s actions, nor were they part of his intent.
Alekseev set fire to a small, separate building. The arson was committed late at night; there is no evidence anyone was inside or nearby. He did not even use Molotov cocktails: as seen in the video, he lit a small piece of cloth and threw it on the steps. There is no visible fire in the footage, and journalists who visited the scene the next morning saw only spots of some liquid on the ground and servicemen replacing wooden panels. The extent of the damage to the panels is unknown.
Given these circumstances, there is no reason to believe that the arson—if indeed committed by Alekseev—was planned as a terrorist act or could realistically destabilize the functioning of government bodies or intimidate the population.
Based on this, and on Alekseev’s actions and their consequences, the classification appears incorrect. We believe that his actions could have been classified under Part 2 of Article 167 of the Criminal Code—intentional destruction or damage of property by arson. The maximum penalty under that article (even in the event of negligent death) does not exceed five years of imprisonment.
As of the preparation of this report, in December 2025, Andrey Alekseev has already been held in detention facilities for 3 years and 4 months, and with the pretrial detention credit, even longer. Thus, even if he had been convicted under Article 167 Part 2, he would have already served his sentence fully or most of it.
The independent human rights project Support for Political Prisoners. Memorial, continuing the work of the Political Prisoners Support Program of the Memorial Human Rights Center, finds—based on the international guidelines for defining the concept of a “political prisoner”—that the criminal case against Andrey Alekseev is politically motivated, aimed at intimidating opponents of the aggressive war and society at large, i.e., at strengthening and preserving the power of those in authority. The lengthy deprivation of liberty is clearly disproportionate to Alekseev’s actions and was imposed in violation of his right to a fair trial and other rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Russian Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Support for Political Prisoners. Memorial considers Andrey Alekseev a political prisoner and demands his immediate release and a review of his criminal case by a fair and impartial court.
Recognizing someone as a political prisoner does not imply agreement with their views or statements, nor approval of their statements or actions.
Updated on December 12, 2025
