The wrongful prosecution of academic and lawyer Dr. Oleg Maltsev highlights more than an individual’s plight: it reveals a judicial system reluctant to uphold rights against the influence of security services, threatening Ukraine’s EU aspirations.
Dr. Maltsev, an academic and practising lawyer, has been held for over 370 days in Odesa’s Pre-Trial Detention Centre (SIZO) on subversion charges he denies. The defense contends that the case is fabricated and stems from Maltsev’s expression of his views.
Maltsev was detained on September 12, 2024. He has been held in SIZO without bail for over a year, despite health deterioration and inadequate medical treatment, says his lawyer, Yevheniia Tarasenko.
After a research trip to Italy in December 2023, Maltsev was aware of criminal charges against him in Ukraine, the SBU officer behind it, and anonymous offers to settle the matter monetarily. Nevertheless, he returned to Ukraine to lawfully resolve the issue, confident in his innocence, but it was not enough.
In May 2024, the SBU initiated proceedings, leading to Maltsev’s arrest on September 12 and his remand to SIZO without bail, where he has since remained.
The arrest was based on an expert analysis of videos where Dr. Maltsev held meetings at the European Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (EUASU). His detention resulted from interpretations of his words by a unit subordinate to the SBU, allegedly expressing his views on security matters.
He faces two criminal charges:
- Article 109 – Conspiracy to overthrow the constitutional order and seize state power;
- Article 260 – Creation of an illegal paramilitary formation.
Why such accusations? On what basis?
Foreseeing the Russian invasion and planning self-defense
The defense argues that the case is fabricated and the prosecution is due to his expressed opinions.
While on a European research trip, Maltsev held an online meeting outlining a plan for EUASU staff if Russian forces entered Odesa, questioning the security services’ ability to protect residents. He was influenced by events in Kherson at the war’s start.
On March 2, 2022, no Ukrainian forces were visible in central Kherson, per The Washington Post. Former Kherson mayor Volodymyr Mykolayenko noted that as of February 24, 2022, there were no police, military, or SBU present. “Kherson was left without those who should have defended it,” he stated. “By the evening of February 24, there were no police, no army, and no SBU. Among those who truly defended the city, I only saw patrol policemen.”
A similar scenario seemed likely for Odesa in spring 2022, possibly unsettling local authorities. Residents faced with occupiers feared looting and robbery. Hence, a plan was proposed for EUASU staff to ensure self-defense and protect both the population and the Academy’s assets.
The Ukrainian judiciary and the defense’s case
The defense’s strategy focused on challenging the SBU’s expert report, essential to Dr. Maltsev’s detention as a lawyer.
The investigation alleges members of the purported illegal paramilitary group include: scientists (Dr. Maltsev’s colleagues from the Research Institute and EUASU), housewives, journalists, lawyers, and translators—none with military service or combat experience, mostly women.
Lawyer Alexander Babikov asserted there is no evidence of such a paramilitary group, any military settlement, military training programs, or illegal weapons. The investigation relies solely on their disputed interpretation of Dr. Maltsev’s conversation.
“Keeping Dr. Oleg Maltsev in custody for over a year without bail is a punitive, not precautionary, measure. By disregarding independent expertise and overlooking signs of prosecutorial corruption, judges risk aligning with politically motivated prosecutions. Such decisions cast a long shadow over their careers — Strasbourg will not forget.”
— Anna Sassu, Italian human rights expert, former Human Rights Watch staff member
On February 27, 2025, Maltsev’s defense received results from a comprehensive linguistic and semantic-text
Leave a Reply