14 March 2026
The cases (at least two) involving the former Galitsky spouses are full of surprises and promise a gripping sequel
by Leonid Nikitinsky
Source: Novaya gazeta
Aliya Galitskaya’s suicide on 6 February in a temporary detention centre in Istra has woven several storylines into a tangled knot, some of which lead far beyond a family feud.
On 11 March the General Prosecutor’s Office filed a petition with Tver district court demanding that Aleksandr Galitsky and his business structures be designated an extremist association and that his assets, valued at 8bn roubles, be taken into state ownership. The day before, Galitskaya’s attorney, Dmitry Emelyanov, reported that the extortion case against his client had been dismissed following a prosecutor’s review ‘on account of the absence of evidence of extortion,’ that is, on account of the absence of the criminal act itself (Article 24, Part 1, of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).
This alone indicates that the interconnected legal cases involving the former Galitsky spouses are under special oversight from above and this will continue. If the investigative authorities had wanted to put the brakes on the extortion case, as often happens, it would have been closed on account of the death of the accused (Article 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and buried along with her.
The termination of the case under Part 1 retrospectively raises the question of the likelihood of initiating a case against the investigator under Article 299 CC RF: ‘Intentionally bringing a person known to be innocent to criminal liability or the unlawful initiation of a criminal case.’
There may also be grounds for charges against Judge Fedor Grigoryev, who approved Galitskaya’s detention: Article 305 CC RF states: ‘The intentional handing down by a judge of a verdict, decision, or other judicial act known to be unjust.’
In the event of serious consequences—and the defendant’s suicide could be classified as such—the investigator and judge could face five to ten years in prison.
Having said ‘A,’ one must also say ‘B.’ The question is, who, besides the deceased’s lawyers, has an interest in this.
From the initial reports by TASS and Interfax on February 19, we know that the suicide ‘outraged’ Supreme Court chair Igor Krasnov. In turn, Judge Fedor Grigoryev, with whom we spoke on 21 February, told Novaya gazeta that he had wanted to limit the measure to bail, but the decision to remand Galitskaya in custody was allegedly dictated to him via Irina Putynets, chair of Istra City Court, supposedly by Aleksei Kharlamov, chair of Moscow Regional Court. (It appears that investigative or quasi-investigative bodies may also look into confirming or refuting this version of events put forward by the judge—Ed.)
In an interview with Novaya gazeta (on the website dated 23 February), Grigoryev admitted he has no evidence of Kharlamov’s alleged interference in his review of the case against Galitskaya, and that only Putynets can supposedly confirm this. But what if there is some evidence after all, or if it turns up? Then questions may arise regarding Kharlamov, a protégé of Vyacheslav Lebedev, for whom he worked as a judge-referent for many years. Coincidentally, this might be of interest to the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, if Krasnov truly intends to continue ridding himself of the ‘Lebedev legacy.’ Especially since changes are also possible in the Moscow Region leadership as a result of the prosecution of Sergei Shoigu’s deputies.
There are many coincidences in this scenario—but what kind of detective story would it be without them? The Prosecutor General’s Office’s demand to recognize Galitsky and his business structures as an ‘extremist organization’ also seems like a separate plot line. But this brings us back to the beginning: to the question of whether Aliya Galitskaya’s actions constituted extortion.
After all, the fact that her ex-husband allegedly provided assistance to Ukraine became known precisely and solely from her. We are not discussing whether this is good or bad; we are merely noting that Galitskaya apparently did more than just blackmail Galitsky—before taking her own life, she could have turned him in.
Ilya Shumanov* researched Galitsky’s biography and business structures for a project he collaborated on with Tatyana Felgengauer*. He explained that in Russia, Galitsky had been highly successful with projects in the telecommunications sector, where he inevitably had to interact with the FSB. At the same time, he built an entire empire of startups, the majority of which are based in foreign jurisdictions, particularly in the United States. According to Shumanov, what Galitsky is accused of — aiding Ukraine — was allegedly also an investment.
As a man talented in everything, Galitsky had several official and unofficial wives, and that’s what got him into trouble. Shumanov believes that Galitsky’s ex-wife was not shortchanged in the divorce settlement, so the fundamental dispute was not about money, but about their two daughters, who, according to a court ruling, were supposed to live with their mother in Russia but were allegedly abducted by their father and are currently abroad. Under these circumstances, blackmail truly cannot be classified as extortion.
Attorney Emelyanov, who had seen his client at the detention centre just three hours before her alleged suicide, told me she was depressed, as anyone would be upon first losing their freedom, but her attitude was entirely businesslike: they discussed her business matters, and nothing indicated her intention to take her own life.
The case still holds a whole series of mysteries. Who, besides the lawyer, could have visited Aliya at the temporary detention centre in Istra, which, according to those who have been there, is a very gloomy place? What, finally, was in Aliya’s suicide note, which no one has seen and the full contents of which have not been made public?
P.S. Galitsky stated in an interview with RBK that his venture capital fund, Almaz Capital, dealt exclusively with civilian projects and never financed weapons production, including for Ukraine: ‘I have not been hiding from anyone and am not hiding now; I am in Russia and am ready at any time to provide detailed explanations to law enforcement agencies regarding the fund’s operations and my involvement in it.’
* The Russian Ministry of Justice has added Ilya Shumanov to the register of ‘foreign agents.’
Translated by Rights in Russia
