Print version. Published on www.sova-center.ru Original: /en/misuse/reports-analyses/2025/01/d47100/ Age limit: 18+

Family Values. The Anniversary of an Innovation in Russian Anti-Extremist Policy

In the fall of 2023, Russian courts began considering (and granting) claims by prosecutors to recognize beneficiaries and direct managers of various enterprises, as well as the beneficiaries’ family members, as “extremist associations”. In some cases, as far as we know, companies owned by these individuals and registered abroad have also been recognized as members of such associations. Courts confiscate property belonging to the defendants (including shares, capital stakes, and real estate) since it is allegedly used to carry out extremist activities, specifically to provide financial assistance to Ukrainian troops.

At least six such decisions were issued during the year:

• On November 2, 2023, a court in Kursk recognized beneficiaries and owners of the confectionery company Konti-Rus as an “extremist association.” These include influential Ukrainian businessmen and politicians Rinat Akhmetov, Boris Kolesnikov, offshore companies owned by Kolesnikov, and six other individuals close to Akhmetov, including his niece. The court agreed with the prosecutor's office that the ideological and property interests of Kolesnikov and Akhmetov “have a pronounced anti-Russian character;” they supported the Armed Forces of Ukraine, as well as the Azov Regiment, designated a terrorist organization in Russia. Akhmetov controlled Conti-Rus through his niece and associates, and Kolesnikov – through several offshore companies. The court ordered the transfer of their shares to state ownership.[1]

• On December 12, 2023, a court in the Volgograd region recognized Kostiantyn Yefymenko, First Deputy Minister of Infrastructure of Ukraine, and his sister Yelizaveta Andreeva, who had previously obtained Russian citizenship, as an “extremist association.” The prosecutor's office claimed they were helping the Armed Forces of Ukraine. At the same time, through an offshore firm registered to his sister, Yefymenko controlled the Ural Auto-Textile Products Plant (Ural ATI) and its subsidiaries, which manufacture products, including those for defense needs.[2]

• On February 12, 2024, a court in Lipetsk designated former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, his son Alexei, and Oleg Kazakov, who owned the Roshen confectionery factory in that Russian city, an “extremist association”.[3]

• On June 4, 2024, a court in Kursk recognized Ukrainian businessman Yevhen Cherniak, the owner of the Global Spirits alcohol holding company, along with two founders and managers of his Russian companies and the owner of an offshore firm that controlled one of the enterprises, as an “extremist association.” In total, capital shares and stock holdings of seven vodka factories and distributors were forfeited to the state. According to the Prosecutor General's Office, Cherniak sponsored the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and a criminal case was opened against him for financing terrorism (Article 205.1 Part 1.1 of the Criminal Code). Meanwhile, he was previously a suspect in a criminal case opened by Ukrainian law enforcement agencies based on his cooperation with Russia.[4]

• On July 2, 2024, a court in St. Petersburg recognized the well-known journalist Alexander Nevzorov and his wife Lilia as an “extremist association.” Three land plots, a building on a plot of land, a residential house, a car and a quarter of the capital shares in a firm owned by Lilia Nevzorova were seized by the state. According to the prosecutors, all this property was used to carry out extremist activities.[5] Nevzorov left Russia in 2022 to openly support Ukraine; he has also reportedly obtained Ukrainian citizenship. In 2023, a court in Russia sentenced him in absentia to eight years' imprisonment under paragraph “e” of Article 207.3 Part 2 of the Criminal Code (dissemination of deliberately false information about the actions of Russian troops, motivated by political hatred).

• On July 24, 2024, a court in the Tambov region designated vodka tycoon Yuri Shefler and a number of companies associated with him as an “extremist association.” In the lawsuit, the Prosecutor General's Office emphasized that Shefler harbors “hatred toward the Russian people that cannot be explained by any rational consideration,” “encourages the Ukrainian army's shelling of Russian regions, their bombing of civilian targets, and killing of civilians based on nationality,” supports Ukraine and discredits the Russian army, defames Russia in European courts, and attempts to deprive the state enterprise Soyuzplodoimport of its rights to the Stolichnaya and Moskovskaya vodka brands. The prosecutors also stated that the corporate policy of Shefler's Luxembourg companies, through which he owned Russian enterprises, fully aligned with his own beliefs: these companies condemned the 'special military operation,' supported Ukraine, and even renamed the vodka 'Stolichnaya' to 'Stoli' to eliminate associations with Russia."[6]

This practice represents an entirely new development in the application of anti-extremist legislation, which has been evolving for over 20 years. The emergence of such lawsuits and court decisions is clearly linked to extraordinary foreign policy and military circumstances. However, questions remain about both the rationale behind this practice and its compliance with the law.

The federal law “On Combating Extremist Activity” never defines the term “extremist association.” However, its Article 9 provides that the court may liquidate “a public or religious association or other organization” at the request of a prosecutor's office. In addition, the court may prohibit the activities of “a public or religious association that is not a legal entity” on the same claim. The grounds for filing such lawsuits are quite broad: it is sufficient to establish that the organization or association in question has conducted activities that violate various rights and freedoms or threaten public order or public safety. When a legal entity is liquidated, its property is subject to confiscation.

However, the cases described above do not easily align with these legal provisions. First, the Prosecutor General's Office does not liquidate legal entities whose property could potentially be transferred to the state but instead targets specific groups of individuals, including actual and nominal company owners.

Next, the law addresses only the banning of public or religious associations that are not legal entities. Groups of factory or property owners clearly do not qualify as religious associations. They also scarcely meet the definition of a “public association” under Russian law, particularly as they pursue no common goals other than purely commercial ones.

Nevertheless, even in earlier cases, this distinction did not prevent various entities—perceived as social movements by the Russian Prosecutor's Office but not by their participants—from being designated as extremist or terrorist organizations. Examples include AUE [7] and LGBT, which have been banned in Russia as international extremist movements, and the Columbine school shooting subculture, which has been classified as an international terrorist movement.

Our third consideration pertains to classifying families as “extremist associations”. A family is not formed to engage in extremist activities, generate profit, or “protect common interests and achieve common goals” as outlined in the legislation on public associations. It is no coincidence that family relations are governed by a distinct Family Code.

Certainly, the provisions of anti-extremist legislation can be applied to individual family members. However, labeling spouses as an “extremist association” (as occurred with the Nevzorovs) effectively blurs the boundary between family members' agreements on household matters and plans, including those concerning the disposition of property, and the definition of organized extremist activity.

[1] Nikolai Sergeev, Anatoly Kostyrev. “Ekstremisty ostalis' bez sladkogo,” Kommersant, November 2, 2023.

[2] The list of public associations and religious organizations, in respect of which the court made a decision that entered into legal force on liquidation or prohibition of activity on the grounds provided by the Federal Law of July 25, 2002 No. 114-FZ “On Countering Extremist Activity,” Ministry of Justice of Russia. 2024.

[3] Sergei Tolmachyov, Nikolai Sergeev. “Otvetka za konfetku,” Kommersant, February 19 2024; The court decision banned the activities of Pyotr and Alexei Poroshenko, Oleg Kazakov, Lipetsk Regional Court System, VKontakte, February 19, 2024.

[4] Sergei Tolmachyov, Nikolai Sergeev. “Alkoekstremizm,” Kommersant, May 14, 2024; Sergei Tolmachyov. “Sud v Kurske natsionaliziroval aktivy alkogol'nogo kholdinga Global Spirits,” Kommersant, June 4, 2024.

[5] The Oktyabrsky District Court of St. Petersburg satisfied the administrative claim of the prosecutor's office against the Nevzorovs, “LEBEDINOYE Ozero,” Telegram, July 2.

[6] Nikolai Sergeev, Vladimir Komarov. “Postavshchik vodki i VSU,” Kommersant, July 3, 2024; Sergey Tolmachyov. “V sostoyanii alkogol'noy konfiskatsii,” Kommersant, July 24, 2024; The court recognized businessman Shefler and a number of his companies as an extremist association, Interfax, July 24, 2024.