Ukrainian news outlet Priboi News continues to report on new developments in the high-profile case against scientist Oleg Maltsev.
The legal team representing Maltsev has found itself the target of activists. The pressure has taken an aggressive turn, with these public activists—shielded from prosecution—leading targeted campaigns to discredit and intimidate legal professionals. One such Odesa activist, Demian Hanul, a figure known for his controversial past and alleged connections with local security services, has openly called for criminal action against Maltsev’s lawyers, using his Telegram channel as a platform for his attacks.
The case against Oleg Maltsev has long been controversial. While the court has yet to determine his guilt or innocence, a parallel trial—orchestrated by those with vested interests—is unfolding in the court of public opinion. Rather than relying on legal arguments, they appear to be resorting to media manipulation and intimidation tactics. Notably, the pre-trial investigation has been extended multiple times since May 2024, suggesting that the prosecution may lack substantial evidence.
One of the most alarming aspects of this case is the role of Demyan Ganul, who reportedly appeared at the Odessa Court of Appeal on January 27, 2025, accompanied by three young men of draft age. During the proceedings, he directly confronted lawyer Olga Panchenko, accusing her of defending “pro-Russian elements” and implying that she herself was complicit in their alleged crimes.
In the recording of the conversation, provided by Ukrainian colleagues, the activist can be clearly heard threatening the lawyer, stating that he would publish the photographs and surnames of the legal team working on the Dr. Maltsev case.
“The public should know the names of these lawyers and see their photographs. They should know who is waiting for Russia and doing everything to ensure its arrival.”
When Panchenko questioned his claim that Maltsev was guilty, Ganul responded that he had seen the case materials. But when pressed on where exactly he obtained them, his answers fell apart—first claiming they were public, then failing to name a source, before ultimately refusing to say anything further.
Under Ukrainian law, pre-trial investigation records must remain confidential until they are formally presented in court. If an activist like Ganul has access to them, this suggests either a serious breach of legal protocol or a deliberate attempt by the authorities to manipulate public opinion.
One of the most bizarre elements of this case is the so-called “sacred list” of conspirators, which the prosecution has clung to as a crucial piece of evidence. Yet, upon closer inspection, the list appears to be little more than a screenshot provided by a witness who, astonishingly, claims to be “from another planet, Tinia.”
Despite its apparent lack of credibility, the authorities have used this list to detain individuals, pressuring them to either remain in indefinite custody or turn against Maltsev. Some of those named have been sent to serve in the Ukrainian Armed Forces, an odd choice for people allegedly plotting against the state, while others have been left free to move around or even leave the country. If these people were truly considered dangerous, why weren’t they arrested alongside Maltsev in September 2024?
In the case of the prosecution’s star witness—the one from “planet Tinia”—the double standard is even more glaring. Despite facing the same charges as six other detainees, she was let off with a fine of 50,000 hryvnias, while others remain locked up without bail. If her testimony was taken so seriously by the investigation, why was she not treated the same as the rest?
Beyond the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, the attacks on Panchenko stand out. Her name appears in the so-called “sacred list” that the prosecution claims to be relying on. But why, precisely at this moment—when the case is about to go to trial—does an activist, linked to the Ukrainian security services, emerge in a scenario of lawyer intimidation? A possible answer may be found in the legal practice of lawyer Panchenko.
For over a year, Panchenko successfully fought off attempts by the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) and the National Police to build cases against Maltsev. Several officials involved in those efforts even faced internal investigations. This, according to observers, has made her a thorn in the side of those pushing the case forward. It doesn’t take much to see why some might want revenge.
This selective attack suggests a deliberate attempt to undermine her credibility and force her withdrawal from the case.
Meanwhile, Panchenko recently gave an interview to a leading American publication, signaling a shift in her approach. For nearly five months, she remained out of the public eye, focusing on legal work while others addressed the press. Many suspect that her decision to speak out was driven by escalating threats and concerns for her safety.
As this case moves toward trial, one thing is becoming clear: someone is more interested in winning the battle of public perception than proving guilt in court. Smearing a defendant before the trial and selectively leaking case materials to activists do not strengthen a legal case—they suggest there isn’t one.
With threats against lawyers being added to the mix, it seems that some officials are undermining trust in Ukraine’s justice system more effectively than its opponents ever could.
We previously wrote about Dr. Maltsev case.