Novosibirsk Lawyer Tried for TV Show Comments, Colleagues Call Case 'Alarming Precedent'

The magistrate«s court in the Dzerzhinsky district is on the final stretch of a high-profile case concerning a lawyer»s appearance on the talk show «Male and Female». Investigators believe that by showing a recording of his client«s interrogation, prominent Novosibirsk lawyer Vladimir Buzyurgin violated the secrecy of a preliminary investigation, which has caused confusion throughout the country»s legal community. By the time the program was recorded, let alone aired, the investigation in the case had already ended, and the materials were being considered in an open court trial. NGS journalists have closely followed this truly Kafkaesque process: according to the defendant, it could set an alarming precedent not only for lawyers but for any individual.

Seven Years of Proceedings

In 2022, Novosibirsk lawyer Vladimir Buzyurgin began representing the interests of 22-year-old Ivan Prudnikov, who, according to the investigation«s version, was guilty of the murder of teenager Dima Abramov, committed back in 2018. The case seemed hopeless at that point—at least to an outside observer.

As per official statements from the Investigative Committee of Russia (СКР), after the murder, Ivan Prudnikov moved from Novosibirsk Oblast to Kaliningrad, and when he was finally detained three years later, he confessed to the crime on camera. In November of that same year, the investigation was completed, and the case with the indictment was sent to court. It was to be considered by a jury.

Or rather, by three juries in succession. At least two of them found that Ivan Prudnikov was not guilty and that the real murderer was still at large. The opinion of the very first jurors remained unknown: as soon as they handed their verdict to the judge, the jury was for some reason dismissed.

Only the last verdict, issued in 2025, ultimately came into legal force, and Ivan Prudnikov, after almost seven years of investigation and trials (the young man spent most of this time in a pre-trial detention center), was found not guilty and entitled to rehabilitation.

By that time, the criminal case, which had dragged on for seven years, was known throughout Russia: in April 2023, the defendant«s relatives and his lawyer spoke about it during a broadcast of the talk show »Male and Female«. Vladimir Buzyurgin provided the show»s experts with a video recording of that very interrogation where his client confessed to the murder. Psychologists concluded that the young man was incriminating himself, repeating someone else«s memorized words without fully understanding their meaning.

Investigators from the Investigative Committee, in turn, decided that such defense went beyond the law and opened a criminal case under Article 310 of the Russian Criminal Code—for disclosing the secrecy of a preliminary investigation. In early summer 2024, Vladimir Buzyurgin found himself in the courtroom of the Dzerzhinsky District magistrate«s court in Novosibirsk not as a lawyer, but as a defendant.

Several prominent lawyers, including from the federal chamber, volunteered to defend their colleague. Not just out of professional solidarity, but because, in their opinion, a guilty verdict for Vladimir Buzyurgin would strike a painful blow not only to lawyers but to all Russians.

«Naturally, if a lawyer was bound by any obligations of non-disclosure of certain information, then he should have complied with those obligations. But in this case, firstly, the evidence [provided by Buzyurgin to journalists] had already been disclosed in an open court hearing. Secondly, the investigation had already been completed,» commented one of Vladimir Buzyurgin«s lawyers, Sergey Krauze. »Essentially, there can be no talk of any investigation secrecy at the stage of judicial proceedings.«

Against the backdrop of the murder case at the «U morya Obskogo» park, the charges against Vladimir Buzyurgin were investigated and considered for just over three years. On Friday, 30 January, the prosecution and defense presented their closing arguments and stated their cases to the court and each other.

The Investigation Ended, the Secrecy Continues

The main stumbling block in the case, where even the defendant has a higher legal education, became the question of interpreting legal norms. According to Vladimir Buzyurgin and his lawyers, the secrecy of a preliminary investigation ends where the investigation itself ends: as soon as the investigator finishes gathering evidence and allows the accused and his defender to familiarize themselves with the materials and the indictment.

«To deem the charges untenable, it is sufficient to establish only that the act, which the investigation authorities consider criminal, was committed after the completion of the judicial investigation and the issuance of a final decision. And such an absurd concept as the secrecy of a court hearing does not and cannot exist,» stated Vladimir Buzyurgin.

The murder case at the «U morya Obskogo» park was heard in an open court process—only the jury selection was behind closed doors. Furthermore, local media actively wrote about the high-profile story, and the investigation«s secrecy did not suffer from this. It only failed to withstand national publicity.

The prosecution, in turn, held a different opinion: according to the state prosecutor«s speech, neither the end of the investigation nor such a fundamental principle of legal proceedings as transparency cancels the non-disclosure agreement signed by the lawyer.

«By the meaning of the law, criminal proceedings are an activity regulated by the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, including all stages from the initiation of a case to the execution of a sentence. <...> The non-disclosure agreement for preliminary investigation data continues to be in effect even after the criminal case is transferred to court, as this investigation remains confidential until the completion of the judicial proceedings,» stated the state prosecutor. «It is not automatically revoked. It was also not revoked by the investigator.»

In other words, according to the prosecution, anyone who gave the investigator a non-disclosure agreement cannot discuss the case materials even at the moment when everyone else is already allowed to do so.

Since the criminal case was initiated against Vladimir Buzyurgin, the parties« opinions have not changed. Although in other respects the situation has changed dramatically. Initially, under Article 310 of the Criminal Code, the defendant faced punishment ranging from a fine of 80,000 rubles (approx. $1,000 at current rates) to 3 months of arrest and revocation of his lawyer»s status. But for more than six months now, the prosecutors have been supporting their version by inertia, and the defendant—on principle.

«We propose to sentence Buzyurgin under Article 310 of the Criminal Code to compulsory labor for a term of 400 hours <...> with deprivation of the right to engage in advocacy for a term of 1 year. Based on point »a« of part 1 of Article 78 of the Criminal Code, Buzyurgin should be released from punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution,» the state prosecutor asked the court.

The defense, in turn, insisted on the lawyer«s full acquittal and considered the very initiation of the criminal case as an alarming precedent.

«First and foremost, this will affect every lawyer, because we are taught precisely that the secrecy of a preliminary investigation ends with the investigation,» noted Vladimir Buzyurgin. «In court, I gave examples from textbooks [that confirm my words]—it turns out we all possess incorrect information. No one [among lawyers] knows that by commenting on a criminal case at the trial stage, they are committing a crime. Furthermore, if we assume that the prosecution is applying the criminal law correctly, a lawyer will not be able to fully conduct a defense in a court hearing, as he will not be able to speak about the evidence in the criminal case.»

Whether Vladimir Buzyurgin and his fellow lawyers are right or the investigators and prosecutors are right must be decided by the court. The final hearing is scheduled for next week.

The case concerning the disclosure of investigation secrets is truly unique. Far more often, Novosibirsk lawyers find themselves in the dock for simple fraud: they promise to help bribe law enforcement officials but keep the money for themselves.