How Lawyers Oleg Maltsev and Olga Panchenko Were Allegedly Planning to “Take Over” Odessa

The recent high-profile detention of attorney Olga Panchenko—who represents Ukrainian scholar Dr. Oleg Maltsev and four other individuals in a controversial criminal case—has provoked widespread indignation and raised serious questions.

On the face of it, the arrest of Panchenko, accused of acting as an accomplice to her own client seven months after undertaking his legal defense, appears, to put it mildly, illogical. The charge brought against her is identical to that faced by her clients: the organization and participation in an illegal paramilitary group. At the initial hearing, both Panchenko and her legal team stated that they had reviewed the very same case materials which now serve as the basis for her suspicion—materials that have been available to her for the past seven months.

In other words, for seven full months, investigators and prosecutors permitted Panchenko to engage in procedural actions. She met with her clients—now reclassified as her alleged co-conspirators—in pre-trial detention, communicated with them, provided legal counsel, and was granted access to all investigative documents. The question thus arises: what changed?

According to Judge Naumenko, who ruled on Panchenko’s pre-trial detention, the arrest was part of “the tactics of conducting the pre-trial investigation, which are not subject to disclosure but form part of its strategic design.”

However, this purported “design” failed to persuade the panel of appellate judges. Throughout the appeal, the judges repeatedly questioned the prosecution as to whether there was any evidence that Panchenko had influenced witnesses or tampered with evidence during those seven months. No concrete answers were forthcoming.

At the appellate hearing, Panchenko’s lawyer addressed the optics of the situation, acknowledging that to some, it might appear as if she had “jumped onto the last carriage of the train” by agreeing to represent Maltsev. Yet, the facts tell a different story. The case originated under the jurisdiction of the State Bureau of Investigation (GBI) in September 2023, at which time it did not involve charges of illegal paramilitary activity. Instead, the initial investigation centered on allegations of bribery, treason, and the justification of russian aggression. Notably, Dr. Maltsev was not named as a suspect during that phase of the investigation. When the case materials were transferred to the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) in May 2024, Panchenko continued to represent his interests.

Another curious episode unfolded during the first-instance court hearing: the prosecutor, in addition to citing the works of Ukrainian poet Vasyl Stus and referencing case law from the state of Texas, read aloud excerpts from a recorded conversation, allegedly from a protocol of video inspection. Panchenko was a participant in this dialogue, dated April 2022.

This raises further questions: by September 2024, Panchenko was aware of this protocol and its presence in the case file, yet she did not recuse herself. Nor did she leave the country, despite facing no travel restrictions. According to fellow lawyers involved in the Maltsev case and colleagues familiar with Panchenko’s professional integrity, she received repeated threats over the seven-month period. These threats demanded she withdraw from the case in exchange for “procedural safety”—offers she reportedly declined.

Panchenko’s choices may seem, at the very least, unstrategic: to confront powerful state security agencies during wartime, knowing she could be imprisoned at any moment, and to persevere in her legal duties under constant pressure. But that is exactly what she did.

To gain deeper insight into the case and its unusual turns, we spoke with another member of Dr. Maltsev’s defense team, attorney Evgenia Tarasenko. What follows is an interview that sheds light on the case through detailed testimony and documented facts.

Q: First question—many court decisions refer to a specific “list” of individuals whom the investigation alleges were part of an illegal paramilitary formation, purportedly plotting to seize control of Odessa. Who are these individuals?

A: According to the investigative authorities, there are 23 individuals on this so-called list—23 people, allegedly conspiring to seize Odessa, a city of over one million residents. I will begin with those who have been held in custody for the past seven months without any alternative pre-trial measures. I will name only those whose identities have already been made public and who have consented to disclosure:

• Dr. Oleg Maltsev — a Ukrainian scientist of international repute;
• Kostyantyn Slobodyanyuk — a well-known journalist and former producer at several television networks;
• Sergey Engelmann — a German citizen and international journalist, owner of several magazines in Germany;
• A 53-year-old woman who assisted Dr. Maltsev’s wife with domestic duties;
• A female assistant to Dr. Maltsev who also served as an Italian interpreter;
• A psychologist and director of a research institute, known to be a follower of the renowned Hungarian psychiatrist Lipót Szondi;
• A freelance academic who had previously collaborated with the European Academy of Sciences of Ukraine;
• Attorney Olga Panchenko, who was released from custody on bail by decision of the Court of Appeal on April 25, 2025.

In addition, there was a former journalist held in pre-trial detention who initially denied all charges. However, after four months in custody, he reached a plea agreement with the prosecution and admitted guilt for alleged participation in an illegal paramilitary formation. In practical terms, the court issued him a suspended sentence—effectively, no meaningful punishment. He has been freely walking the streets of Odessa for some time now.

The remaining individuals on the list are those who, at various times, collaborated with the European Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. Among them are eight men and five women. Notably, the list also includes a U.S. citizen and the owner of a media production company based in Los Angeles.

None of those listed has any combat experience, to my knowledge. Perhaps two of them previously served in the military, but that is all.

So, to summarize the position of the investigation: a group of 23 individuals—comprising 10 women and 13 men, most of whom are intellectuals, academics, and civilians with no military background—were allegedly plotting to seize control of a major Ukrainian city. The logic of this allegation is difficult to grasp.

Q: And how did the investigation compile this list?

A: The list was provided by a witness in the case—a citizen of Kyrgyzstan. This is the same individual who, in her sworn testimony, claimed she came from “Planet Tinia, made entirely of gold and crystal.” The defense formally requested a psychiatric evaluation of this witness, given the fantastical nature of her statements, but the investigator refused.

This witness has a clear and personal grudge against Dr. Maltsev, which she does not even attempt to conceal. She also pleaded guilty to participation in an illegal paramilitary formation. Interestingly, no preventive measure was imposed on her whatsoever. The court sentenced her to a fine of 59,500 hryvnias.

Here is the refined version of your text, written in classical and formal English while preserving the logic and emotional weight of the original:

Q: Am I correct in understanding that individuals who plead guilty are immediately released from custody?

A: Precisely. Those who choose not to plead guilty have been held in pre-trial detention for seven months without the possibility of release on bail. Notably, five of these individuals—four women and a German journalist—are charged with offenses that are not classified as serious under Ukrainian criminal law.

Moreover, if one considers the sentences already imposed on two individuals who pleaded guilty—a monetary fine of 59,500 hryvnias and a suspended sentence—it becomes evident that those still held without alternative measures do not present any genuine threat to society. They are simply being “marinated,” so to speak, in the hope that prolonged detention will pressure them into making “voluntary confessions.”

Q: Tell us about the protocol that was read aloud in court during the hearing on pre-trial measures for attorney Olga Panchenko.

A: First, no protocol was formally read aloud. Rather, isolated phrases were selectively extracted and quoted out of context. It is important to emphasize that the prosecutor himself stated in court that these statements were not evidence of guilt but rather a “characterization” of Olga Panchenko’s persona. At one point, the prosecutor even quoted lines from the poet Vasyl Stus, but neglected to mention that the actual content of the dialogue contains no corpus delicti whatsoever. This conclusion, notably, is supported by the linguistic expert analysis submitted by the prosecution itself—though curiously, the prosecutor omitted this fact when addressing the court.

Secondly, the material in question relates to a three-hour internal meeting of the European Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (EANU), held in April 2022, during the early days of the war. The topic of discussion was the potential response of the Academy in the event that urban warfare broke out in Odessa or that the city fell under russian occupation. At the time, the public was deeply unsettled by widespread reports suggesting imminent amphibious landings by russian forces.

The objective of that meeting was to develop a plan to protect both the people affiliated with the Academy and its property. Throughout the meeting, Dr. Maltsev repeatedly emphasized that the primary goal was the protection of lives and property. Nevertheless, this essential context was conspicuously excluded from the prosecutor’s presentation in court.

Q: What was attorney Olga Panchenko’s role in that meeting?

A: Ms. Panchenko has been providing legal support to the EANU since 2019. At that time, the Academy comprised approximately 200 scientists from across the globe and maintained partnerships with numerous scientific institutions. Its principal mission is to unite international scholars around Ukrainian science. As such, its ongoing collaboration with foreign researchers and the frequent publication of materials on the Academy’s websites often raised questions of copyright and intellectual property. Given that many members of the Academy are non-Ukrainian citizens, it was essential to have legal counsel fluent in English.

Furthermore, like many institutional meetings, this session also had a performative element. As Ms. Panchenko herself explained in court, the video recording of the meeting should not be interpreted as a literal blueprint for action, but as a partially theatrical discourse reflecting the extraordinary anxiety of the time.

Q: In court, the prosecutor cited a conversation between Dr. Maltsev and Ms. Panchenko concerning the use of weapons. What is your response to this?

A: I find the insinuation quite bewildering, particularly given that the transcript clearly states the use of weapons only in the context of self-defense.

This discussion followed remarks from one of the participants, who had quoted a Ukrainian politician asserting that the Azov Battalion had been “almost annihilated” and that Mariupol was being prepared for surrender—claims that were to be spun as a “revival of Ukraine.” Dr. Maltsev, incensed by the statement, responded that framing the killing of Azov fighters as a national revival would only make sense if one were “affiliated with the FSB.” Is this, one might ask, the kind of rhetoric one would expect from someone sympathetic to the russian federation?

The topic of weapon use was also raised after Ms. Panchenko recounted a testimony from a friend in Kherson. According to that account, russian forces had seized food from civilians, and local SBU officials had allegedly handed over details of underground resistance and territorial defense units to russian authorities—leading to brutal reprisals.

In response, Dr. Maltsev elaborated on a concept of “staggered defense”—the idea that the response should be proportionate to the number and armament of attackers. His explanation aligns precisely with Article 36 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which addresses the principle of necessary defense.

In fact, this specific issue was submitted to linguistic experts at the National Scientific Center “Institute of Forensic Expertise named after Honored Professor M.S. Bokarius.” Their conclusion was unequivocal. I quote:

“Based on the linguistic analysis conducted, the experts found that within the examined statements on the video, there were expressions in the form of inducement to use weapons in self-defense. In particular, the speakers identified as ‘Maltsev O.V.’ and ‘Panchenko O.V.’ urged the recipients to use weapons exclusively for the purpose of self-defense against armed attackers in defined military circumstances.”

Moreover, I would like to draw particular attention to the fact that throughout the entire pre-trial investigation—which has now spanned approximately one and a half years—law enforcement authorities conducted nearly 60 searches in connection with the case. Not a single unregistered or live military-grade weapon was discovered, nor was any live ammunition recovered. All of the weapons found were either sporting or hunting arms, and the corresponding ammunition matched this classification. The quantity of cartridges seized was insignificantly small, and all were purchased legally for registered weapons. Documentation confirming lawful ownership and registration was submitted to the investigating judge.

The black humor of the investigative narrative lies in the absurdity of its core claim: that Dr. Oleg Maltsev allegedly intended to “seize Odessa” using registered FORT-9 and FORT-12 pistols. According to Ukrainian law, these are not even classified as firearms, but rather as non-lethal self-defense devices—commonly known as traumatic pistols—which discharge rubber bullets.

No explosives or grenades were found in any of the searches. Thus, the notion that 23 individuals—half of whom are women, and none of whom possess combat experience—intended to overthrow the authorities of a city with a population exceeding one million residents, armed solely with sporting weapons, is nothing short of preposterous. The investigative version of events cannot withstand even the most rudimentary scrutiny.

Q: The trial court also questioned the fact that Attorney Panchenko had visited a shooting range. What is your response to this?

A: Ms. Panchenko has lawfully owned and registered firearms since 2013. According to the prosecution, between 2022 and 2024, Dr. Maltsev allegedly purchased additional firearms and registered them under her name. It will be quite revealing to see how the prosecution intends to prove such a claim in court.

Let us be candid: since the onset of the war, there has been an unprecedented surge in lawful firearm purchases across Ukraine. Citizens are frequenting shooting ranges and preparing to defend themselves—a completely reasonable and lawful response to wartime realities. If visiting a shooting range or possessing a legally registered firearm is deemed suspicious, then one must ask why investigators do not apprehend every individual entering such facilities. Why are professional shooting teams and sport clubs not under investigation?

It is worth noting that most of the firearms registered to Dr. Maltsev are classified as sports weapons. He used them for competitive shooting in the Olympic discipline of Skeet. These trainings were conducted at the official Olympic shooting range in Odessa, and the investigation possessed documentation of this fact well before any formal suspicion was filed against him.

Q: The prosecutor quoted Maltsev as saying that, “if necessary, one could shoot in self-defense.” How should this statement be interpreted?

A: In the context of wartime, distinguishing a Ukrainian soldier from a russian one is not always straightforward—often the only visual difference is the uniform. By that time, numerous reports had emerged indicating that russian forces were disguising themselves in Ukrainian military attire to infiltrate and mislead.

Dr. Maltsev explicitly addressed this danger in his co-authored book Strike in the Worst Way, written with American professor Harvey Wolf Kushner. The statement regarding the use of force in self-defense must therefore be understood within this context: it reflects a discussion on the legal and ethical use of firearms in situations where deception and infiltration pose a direct threat to civilians.

Here is your refined passage in classical English, preserving the legal gravity and logical coherence while enhancing clarity and flow:

Q: During the hearing, Panchenko’s lawyer referenced the concept of the underground resistance. Does this claim correspond to the facts of the case?

A: It does—and there is concrete evidence to support it within the case file. Attorneys Babikov and Fedorenko previously noted that, after the defense gained access to the full body of investigative materials, it became evident that nearly all investigative actions (with the exception of physical searches) were conducted by a single counterintelligence operative. This same individual not only served as the operative but also acted as the complainant in the case. His procedural role was marred by numerous abuses and blatant misrepresentations within the official reports.

This same operative was tasked with analyzing a video recording in which Dr. Maltsev discussed the prospect of an underground resistance in the event that Odessa were occupied by russian forces. However, the official inspection protocol contains none of the actual context. Instead, the operative selectively quoted isolated phrases, presenting them in a distorted fashion. The investigator, therefore, received a version of events filtered through these misrepresentations—ones that neatly aligned with the operative’s preferred narrative.

Q: And where did Dr. Maltsev derive the idea of combining the protection of Academy personnel and assets with potential support for national defense efforts?

A: On March 18, 2022, Ukrainian national media widely reported the formation of the National Resistance Center. This Center, through its official website, published recommendations addressed to Ukrainian citizens on how to assist national defense forces in the event of occupation.

These publicly available guidelines included, among other things:

• Instructions for civilians employed within occupation administrative structures,
• Video tutorials on handling firearms—including automatic rifles, RPGs, and grenades,
• Basic training in tactical medicine,
• Guidance on underground financing and resistance tactics.

Moreover, all of these provisions are firmly grounded in the Law of Ukraine “On National Resistance,” adopted in 2021.

In light of this legal and informational framework, only someone who either assumed they would be evacuated during an urban assault—or, in the case of certain law enforcement officers, simply planned to flee—could plausibly claim ignorance of these protocols. One need only recall the early days of russian advances in Kherson or Mariupol to understand how unrealistic such assumptions were. Most residents in those cities had no opportunity for evacuation.

Thus, practical questions emerge:

• How can one ensure safe departure from an occupied city?
• How should one respond when grenades or landmines are falling nearby?
• What does one do when faced with an armed enemy soldier intent on looting or killing?

In such scenarios, is it reasonable to expect that presenting a lawyer’s ID would ensure safety? This is precisely why, in the video recording from April 2022, Olga Panchenko remarks that “no one needs lawyers now”—because law has no force in a territory consumed by active combat.

Q: Given the severity of these contradictions, why did the defense remain silent for seven months?

A: As the defense team has repeatedly emphasized, this case is the product of unlawful criminal persecution of Dr. Oleg Maltsev by select representatives of law enforcement. And this is not merely our opinion. This view has been echoed by international human rights observers—including European human rights organizations, who explicitly addressed the matter on March 28, 2025, during the 58th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

We fully expected the authorities to manufacture new allegations. Toward the conclusion of the pre-trial investigation, defense counsel Olga Panchenko formally submitted documentary evidence to the prosecutor—materials directly supporting these claims of procedural abuse.

Less than two months later, the very same prosecutor to whom those materials were submitted served Ms. Panchenko with a notice of suspicion, accusing her of organizing an illegal paramilitary group. He then approved and filed a motion seeking her detention without the right to bail.

Q: Final question. Official reports claim that Olga Panchenko intended to assume the position of Prosecutor of Odessa in the event of a russian occupation. Is there any truth to this assertion?

A: I have worked alongside Olga Panchenko for over a decade. The notion that she would become “Prosecutor of Odessa” in case of occupation has, for more than seven years, been an inside joke among our legal colleagues. The phrase originated not from a conspiratorial plan, but from one of Olga’s clients, who once walked into our office and, half-joking, declared he had discovered the solution to all his legal troubles: appoint Olga as the Prosecutor of Odessa. To this, the lawyers in the room responded, laughing, that if such an appointment occurred, he would have less than an hour to reach the airport—since Olga, as his defense attorney, knew far too much about him.

In the video cited by the prosecution, this exact joke is made. Olga utters the line in jest, and both she and Dr. Maltsev laugh. I understand that, given the strain placed on national security institutions during wartime, some officials may be on high alert. But the context here could not be more evident.

That said, in all seriousness, I am confident that if her country were truly in danger, Olga Panchenko would not hesitate to serve in whatever way was necessary, including such a post, if it meant protecting civilians in a time of national crisis.

As history would have it, the occupation forces never reached Odessa. By May 2023—as evidenced in materials that are in the hands of the investigation—Dr. Maltsev explicitly stated that the threat had subsided and that normal activities could resume. Nonetheless, he also remarked—verbatim—that, should the city fall under occupation, “the underground has already been created.”

Then, in September 2024, Maltsev was detained, and the authorities triumphantly announced that they had “disrupted the enemy’s insidious plans.”

In conclusion, I must emphasize that the defense has thoroughly reviewed all 30 volumes of Dr. Oleg Maltsev’s case file. Approximately 60 searches were conducted. Dozens of computers and phones were seized and analyzed. All of Maltsev’s personal devices and messaging applications were subjected to expert forensic examination.

There is no evidence whatsoever of collaboration with the russian federation. There are no covert meetings with foreign handlers, no training drills for urban assaults, no blueprint for seizing Odessa. None of this exists—because it never happened. And what does not exist cannot be uncovered; it can only be fabricated, projected, or imagined by those unwilling to confront the facts.

That is precisely why we, the defense team, have taken the unusual step of publishing video recordings of the court proceedings—because we know our clients are innocent. And it seems increasingly clear that this, more than anything, is what certain parties find intolerable.