The case is being heard by the Lyublino District Court of Moscow, where closing arguments took place on December 10.

According to the prosecution, Nesterenko uploaded materials that—based on an expert assessment—contain, in their Russian translation, linguistic and psychological indicators of inciting hatred or enmity toward a group defined by nationality.

Originally, he faced two charges: paragraph “a” of Part 2 of Article 282 of the Russian Criminal Code (incitement of hatred or enmity with a threat of violence) and Part 2 of Article 280 (public calls for extremist activity online). However, during the closing arguments, the prosecutor stated that the charge under Article 282 had not been substantiated.

The prosecution is seeking four years in a general-regime penal colony, as well as additional penalties: a three-year ban on administering online resources and confiscation of his mobile phone.

Defense attorney Mikhail Meshcheryakov argued that no witness confirmed the presence of extremist materials on Nesterenko’s VK page. Witnesses only stated that Ukrainian-language songs were present in the audio and video sections. None of them speak Ukrainian, and the songs had no translations; the translations used by the expert were prepared solely for the criminal investigation. The expert’s conclusions were based on translated texts that were not present on the VK page.

Citing paragraph 5 of Resolution No. 11 of the Russian Supreme Court Plenum (28 June 2011), the defense emphasized that Article 280 applies only to public calls for extremist activity. No such calls were established: Nesterenko posted no messages and left no comments.

Furthermore, the court and investigators did not establish who originally uploaded the audio and video materials on VK—materials that are not recognized as extremist yet are attributed to Nesterenko. They remain publicly accessible to many users without consequence.

In his statement, Nesterenko highlighted contradictions in witness testimony and pointed to falsified evidence, noting that the inspection report listed a file he never had—something confirmed by VK’s responses to investigative requests.

He argued that the investigation’s actions undermine the credibility of Russia’s law enforcement system, creating the impression that political cases are based on fabricated evidence.

The defendant’s final statement and the possible announcement of the verdict are scheduled for December 19.