A court in Helsinki has rejected a case involving three crew members of a vessel from Russia’s “shadow fleet” who were suspected of damaging Baltic Sea cables, citing jurisdictional limitations. The captain and two senior officers of the Cook Islands-registered oil tanker Eagle S were accused of causing harm to five undersea cables in the Gulf of Finland by dragging the anchor for approximately 90 kilometers (56 miles) on December 25, 2024.
The damaged cables included the EstLink 2 power cable and four telecommunication cables linking Finland and Estonia, among other similar incidents reported last year. Against the backdrop of escalating tensions in the Baltic Sea following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, many analysts and political figures have interpreted the alleged sabotage as part of Russia’s “hybrid war” against Western nations.
The Helsinki District Court stated that it was dismissing the charges and claims for damages against the tanker Eagle S due to the inapplicability of Finnish criminal law in this case. Prosecutors had alleged that the captain, Davit Vadatchkoria from Georgia, and senior officers Robert Egizaryan from Georgia and Santosh Kumar Chaurasia from India had deliberately neglected their duties after departing from the Russian port of Ust-Luga.
The three individuals faced charges of “aggravated criminal mischief and aggravated interference with communications,” with the prosecution seeking unconditional prison terms of at least two-and-a-half years. The defendants, who provided testimony in August and September, denied the accusations. Vadatchkoria remarked in an interview with public broadcaster Yle that the court’s decision demonstrated Finland’s adherence to the rule of law and resistance to political pressures for a guilty verdict.
Following the cable damage, Finnish authorities directed the vessel into Finnish waters, subsequently boarding and seizing it. Prime Minister Petteri Orpo confirmed authorizing the tanker interception, enabling the Border Guard to employ all available resources. The defence contended that Finland lacked jurisdiction as the cable incidents occurred outside Finnish territorial waters, while the prosecution argued otherwise, citing risks to Finland’s critical infrastructure.
The court concluded that the incident did not cause the required impact on Finland’s energy supply or telecommunications to meet the legal definitions of criminal mischief or aggravated criminal mischief. As a result, the Finnish state is obligated to cover the defendants’ legal expenses, amounting to nearly 195,000 euros ($229,000).
The court attributed the anchor loss to a malfunction in the securing mechanism, classifying it as a navigation incident under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It noted that criminal law jurisdiction rested with the ship’s flag state or the defendants’ respective native countries. Upon the trial’s conclusion in September, the suspects’ travel restrictions, imposed since December 2024, were lifted.
The defendants maintained that the cable damage was accidental, attributing it to engine troubles and adverse weather conditions that caused the ship to slow down. Vadatchkoria insisted that there were no signs indicating the anchor had detached from the vessel. Prosecutors argued that the crew should have been aware of the dragging anchor over the extended distance and time, questioning how it could have gone unnoticed.
The trial did not address potential Russian involvement in the incident.