Russia’s occupation ‘Kherson regional court’ has sentenced 42-year-old Serhiy Chekhovsky to 18 years’ maximum-security imprisonment on two of the ‘default’ charges used against Ukrainian civilians abducted from occupied territory. Checkhovsky, and a friend. 51-year-old Svitlana Shevchuk, earlier sentenced to 12 years, were claimed to have ‘spied’ for their own country about the movements of the Russian military which invaded their country and also charged with essentially unexplained possession of explosives.
Almost nothing is known about Serhiy Chekhovsky (b. 19 October 1982) except that he, and probably Svitlana Shevchuk, were seized by the Russians in or before April 2024, two and a half years ago. It is extremely likely that both were held incommunicado, without any formal status, for most of that time, with Russia’s FSB typically using this period when a person is not officially arrested to try to extract ‘confessions’ through torture, threats against the person or their family, etc.
With the ‘trials’ Russia stages on occupied territory, it is also next to impossible to even determine whether there was anything that, even in form, could be considered a trial, rather than simply the hearing at which sentence is announced. The only player named is Andriy Petrov, who is referred to as the [ Russian occupation] ‘Kherson regional prosecutor’, with his ‘support’ for the prosecution’s case reported together with the massive 18-year sentence passed by the equally illegitimate ‘Kherson regional court’. on 15 September 2026.
Chekhovsky was claimed to have, from September 2023 through April 2024, passed on information via WhatsApp to Ukraine’s Military Intelligence about the deployment of Russian military personnel and the routes used to transport military personnel and technology. He was further alleged to have received explosive substances and devices from his Ukrainian ‘handlers’, with the Russians having supposed found such explosive devices hidden away during a search.
If at all true, the Ukrainian would have been informing the defenders of his own country about the movements of an enemy army on Ukrainian territory and in no way constitute ‘’spying’. Since both Chekhovsky, and Svitlana Shevchuk were illegally charged under Russian legislation with ‘spying’ (Article 276 of Russia’s criminal code), not ‘treason’ (Article 275), neither had accepted the Russian citizenship that the invaders aggressively foist on all occupied territory. In practice, however, this can mean as little as that one or both of them were stopped or seized by the Russians for their known pro-Ukrainian position, and some kind of photo or message to somebody in government-controlled Ukraine was then found on their mobile phone(s). The charges are those that seem copy-pasted from one such ‘trial’ to another, with the only real information being the possibility of gauging how long he is likely to have been in Russian captivity.
The charge of ‘illegal purchase, transfer or sale of explosive devices and substances’ (by a group, acting in conspiracy, and with the use of the Internet, under Article 222.1 § 3 a & c is equally dubious. Even in non-political prosecutions, Russian enforcement officers are notorious for planting explosives, drugs, etc., and such alleged ‘finds’ from searches illegally carried out without a lawyer or independent witnesses have long been one of the methods used to fabricate charges against Crimean Tatars and other Ukrainians on occupied territory.
The only other variable is, tragically, the size of the sentences with these increasing all the time. Chekhovsky was sentenced to 18 years in a maximum-security prison colony, and also fined 400 thousand roubles.
Even less is known about Chekhovsky’s alleged ‘accomplice’ Svitlana Shevchuk who was ‘tried’ separately, although on identical charges, in May 2025 and sentenced to 12 years’ medium-security imprisonment with a fine of 300 thousand roubles imposed. Since her sentence has now come into force, it is possible that she did not retract any ‘confession’ likely extracted while she was held incommunicado, and did not file an appeal. Where a person has been held incommunicado for up to a year, and where any ‘trial’ was behind closed doors, there are no grounds at all for seeing this as an admission of ‘guilt’.
