The initial court hearings in the case of young physicist Artem Khoroshilov have revealed that, over two and a half years of persecution, FSB officers failed to coherently link their evidence to the charges of “terrorism and extremism.” The prosecution’s exhibits—a 20-year-old “Young Chemist” science kit and ammonium nitrate seized from the apartment of his retired mother—remain as tenuous as the case itself. T-invariant publishes the full transcript of Tamara Khoroshilova’s interrogation, discloses new details from this legally unprecedented and shockingly brutal prosecution, and traces the year-long surveillance of the scientist prior to his arrest.
On June 5, the Moscow Regional Court held a hearing in the case of physicist Artem Khoroshilov. The sheer number of inconsistencies in the case materials and indictment—from confused references to the charities Khoroshilov allegedly donated to, to haphazardly documented evidence—suggests an investigation marred by negligence. Yet the central question remains unanswered, as underscored by Khoroshilov’s lawyer in court: What exactly were law enforcement officials doing between January 25, 2023, when they first raided the defendant’s mother’s apartment, and December 2023, when criminal charges were finally filed and Khoroshilov was jailed in Lefortovo Prison?
Khoroshilov was detained on December 13, 2023. By February 2024, the physicist faced charges of DDoS attacks (under Article 274.1, Part 4 of Russia’s Criminal Code — unlawful interference with critical information infrastructure). By August, prosecutors had added accusations of funding Ukraine’s Armed Forces (Article 275 — treason). Subsequent charges included sabotage (Article 281) and illegal weapons manufacturing (Article 223). Combined, these charges carry a potential life sentence.
At the first hearing, prosecutor Madina Dolgieva presented an indictment heavily focused on financial transactions — both in rubles and cryptocurrency — allegedly conducted by Khoroshilov. Dolgieva claimed he had transferred Bitcoin to a fund called “Obshchee Delo“ (“Common Cause”). No Ukrainian organization bears this name, though a Russian fund under that title supports Kremlin-backed military operations. Whether this discrepancy stems from prosecutorial negligence or deliberate obfuscation remains unclear; the intended recipient may have been the Ukrainian fund “Spilna Sprava“ (“Joint Cause”). Notably, Dolgieva’s appointment as lead prosecutor appears strategic: she specializes in cryptocurrency-related cases and serves as law enforcement’s go-to expert on the subject.
Khoroshilov partially admitted guilt regarding the treason charge, which rests entirely on transaction records. Yet his brief courtroom statement left ambiguity about which specific actions he acknowledged as culpable.
“I admit partial guilt regarding the charges of financing under Article 275 of the Criminal Code [treason]. I emphasize that I actively cooperated with the investigation on this count, and fail to understand why this fact was omitted from the indictment. As for the remaining charges, I do not dispute the factual circumstances described in the case materials and indictment—but I cannot accept the legal qualifications of my actions,” Khoroshilov stated at the hearing’s outset.
His defense attorney expanded on her client’s arguments, presenting additional key points.
“I would like to draw the court’s attention to the peculiarities of the treason charges under Article 275 of the Criminal Code. In my entire practice, I have never encountered a case with such an excessive number of interrogations—29 sessions filling two volumes out of fifteen in the case file. As the materials show, the criminal case was officially initiated on December 4, 2023. Yet all charges stem exclusively from evidence seized during searches conducted back in January 2023. Over this entire period, the investigation has only managed to substantiate the charges under Article 274.1 Part 4 (DDoS attacks). The remaining charges were constructed solely based on my client’s own statements—specifically his admissions regarding cryptocurrency transactions allegedly funding military efforts. Regarding the other charges, these constitute blanket offenses requiring reference to legal norms beyond the Criminal Code. The current accusations remain largely unproven. The investigative conclusions are speculative, and speculation cannot form the basis of criminal charges. Mere possession of screenshots, photographs, or transaction records by my client does not constitute evidence of criminal intent. I urge the court to apply Article 49(3) of the Russian Constitution—any unresolved doubts regarding guilt must be interpreted in the defendant’s favor—and Article 14 of the Criminal Code (presumption of innocence), which mandates that all ambiguities in the prosecution’s case must benefit the accused,” stated attorney Svetlana Sidorkina.
As T-invariant has learned, on the morning of January 25, 2023, authorities searched the apartment of Artem Khoroshilov’s mother, confiscating ammonium nitrate. According to T-invariant’s sources, Khoroshilov was then held for four days under administrative detention for “profanity” before being released. No further investigative actions occurred until his arrest on December 12, 2023—yet our sources confirm he remained under constant surveillance during this eleven-month interval, a fact both he and his mother suspected.
The rationale for this delayed arrest remains unexplained. All alleged offenses cited in the indictment reportedly occurred in 2022. Despite being under overt suspicion, Khoroshilov appears to have committed no new violations during the surveillance period. This raises critical questions: Why did authorities wait nearly a year to arrest someone accused of such grave crimes? And what exactly were they waiting to discover?
The court heard testimony from 66-year-old pensioner Tamara Khoroshilova, the defendant’s mother. Questioning focused on her son’s scientific interests and family ties in Ukraine—topics tied to evidence seized from her apartment (though, as she noted, Khoroshilov hadn’t lived there for years).
Prosecutor Madina Dolgieva’s Questions:
— Ammonium nitrate was seized from your home. Who did it belong to?
— I can’t answer that.
— Did you purchase it?
— Not this batch, but yes, I’ve bought it as fertilizer.
— Did your son buy it?
— I don’t know.
— How did it end up in your apartment?
— No idea.
— Describe your son’s interest in chemistry.
— It wasn’t just chemistry. He loved all sciences. We had a microscope for biology, telescopes for astronomy…
Judge Roman Izmailov’s Questions:
— Respected witness, you were asked about your son’s interest in chemistry. Could you elaborate?
— Among other things—yes, he was interested.
— Could you characterize him in some way?
— Only in positive terms.
— Briefly, if you could.
— “Briefly” won’t do. Artem was raised in a loving, two-parent household. He was an excellent student—inquisitive, with an almost excessively broad intellectual curiosity, I’d say. He was fascinated by everything, possessed encyclopedic knowledge. Literature, geography… he studied every subject meticulously.
— Did your son communicate with anyone in Ukraine, including online?
— With my sister—she lives in Kyiv area.
— Any other individuals, to your knowledge?
— No.
— Online contacts?
— No. Just my sister.
— Did he ever comment on the situation in Ukraine?
— We never discussed such matters. I invoke Article 51 [of the Constitution]—this line of questioning could harm my son.
Defense Attorney Svetlana Sidorkina’s Questions:
— Were you present during the search operation in your apartment?
— Yes, on January 25, 2023. I remember it vividly. They woke us up, took Artem away, and officers went through every room. I was running back and forth between all three rooms trying to keep up.
— Was a “Young Chemist” set confiscated from you?
— Yes, I believe it was seized in December 2023.
— What about badges and other items with Ukrainian flag colors?
— Yes, those were all taken in December 2023 too. I bought all those items myself over the years – they were kept in my cabinet. I stated this during the search. They were just souvenirs from my vacations. And when visiting relatives in Ukraine, I’d bring them Russian souvenirs instead. Cultural exchange, you might say – friendship between nations through souvenirs.
— For what purpose did you purchase the “Young Chemist” set?
— I bought the “Young Chemist,” “Young Physicist,” and electronics kits myself. This was when my husband was still alive – meaning before 2006. Possibly even earlier, when Artem was in school.
— Was this for school education purposes?
— Yes, for school education and studying the subjects.
— How many summons and interrogations have there been?
— The first was December 12, 2023 – they took me to the Investigative Committee in Moscow. They put me in a car and drove me away. There were four interrogations total.
— What else can you tell us about Artem?
— Artem has always been exceptionally kind. We always had pets at home – dogs, cats. He cared for me tenderly, especially after my husband passed. I never had to ask him for anything – he’d take initiative himself: go shopping, fix things, help out. He taught himself guitar, attended art school. He immersed himself in everything. Take plants, for example – he grew cucumbers on our windowsill, even got mandarin trees to bloom. He and his father were always soldering motors together… Both his school and university speak highly of him – many remember him well. I’ve requested their references.
Judge Roman Izmailov’s Questions:
— Tell us about your relatives in Ukraine.
— Only my sister. She lives in Kyiv area.
— Have any of them been affected by the military conflict (SVO)?
— I don’t know. I’m not aware.
— Earlier, you said you didn’t discuss political topics with your son—then invoked Article 51. So which is it: you didn’t talk about it, or you refuse to answer?
— We avoided political discussions. And no, I won’t elaborate further—I’ll invoke Article 51.
The prosecution then presented interrogation transcripts from several witnesses who testified that Khoroshilov had purchased cryptocurrency from them via the Garantex platform.
What conclusions can be drawn from the first two court hearings? After two and a half years of persecution by security forces and eighteen months in FSB-controlled Lefortovo detention center, the court is attempting to determine why a “terrorist and extremist” (Khoroshilov was added to Rosfinmonitoring’s registry in April 2025) would need a “Young Chemist” set seized during a search – a kit his mother says was bought for him in school about twenty years ago. The judge also insists the mother explain why her son – an honors graduate of MIPT, researcher at the Institute of General Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and active publisher in international journals – was interested in chemistry as a teenager. A third line of judicial inquiry focuses on the Khoroshilov family’s relations with relatives in Ukraine and whether political discussions took place in the household.
These facts may not fully explain why the FSB is attempting to construct an unprecedentedly harsh case against the young physicist using ammonium nitrate, decades-old school chemistry equipment, and Ukrainian-themed souvenirs. But they do reveal why the agency appears to lack the resources to properly safeguard nuclear deterrent systems or prevent security breaches like Operation “Pautina” (Spider Web).
While not all hearings will be public (due to the treason charges), the upcoming session on June 17 at 11:00 AM will be open to observers. Colleagues and former classmates of Artem Khoroshilov are calling for public support, urging attendance to demonstrate solidarity with the persecuted scientist.