Handler with ties to Russia appears to have directed arson attacks on Starmer-linked property
Handler with ties to Russia appears to have directed arson attacks on Starmer-linked property
Convictions for arson linked to UK leader’s assets
Handler with ties to Russia appears - Two men from Ukraine and Romania, Roman Lavrynovych and Stanislav Carpiuc, were convicted at the Old Bailey on Monday for conspiring to carry out arson attacks on premises connected to Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The pair, aged 22 and 27 respectively, were implicated in the destruction of two properties and a vehicle, with their actions seemingly orchestrated by a mysterious online figure with suspected Russian affiliations. A third Ukrainian suspect, Petro Pochynok, 35, was cleared of the same charge, though he had assisted the others during the scheme.
Telegram communication and financial incentives
The prosecution argued that the trio’s actions were coordinated through encrypted messages on Telegram, which traced back to an account linked to a Russian network. During the months-long trial, the jury was presented with evidence suggesting that the men had been recruited by an anonymous Russian-speaking individual known as “El Money” or “Hroshi” in Ukrainian. This figure reportedly offered Lavrynovych £3,000 in cryptocurrency as payment for setting fires, capturing footage, and ensuring the incidents gained media attention.
“You attacked the home of a very high-ranking person in Britain,” El Money wrote in a Telegram message. “I’ll send you money, you need to leave the city.”
Despite the handler’s role in directing the attacks, prosecutors did not disclose their full identity, emphasizing only that they used the alias “El Money” and spoke in Russian and Ukrainian. The connection to Moscow was deemed complex, leading to the men being charged with arson rather than national security offenses.
Testimonies and lack of direct targeting knowledge
During the trial, Pochynok, who was approached by Carpiuc to help with luggage, testified that he had been misled by the others and had no awareness of the plan to burn a car on 8 May. He described Starmer as a “friend of Ukraine,” indicating no personal vendetta against the prime minister. The jury heard that the defendants had no prior grudges, with the attacks appearing to be a calculated effort to create fear and disruption.
“No ideological motivation was evident, and there was no proof they knew who they were targeting,” said Commander Helen Flanagan, head of counter-terrorism policing in London. “Yet the online tasker clearly aimed to instill panic and undermine public trust in the UK.”
Starmer’s sister-in-law, Judith Alexander, provided firsthand accounts of the incident. She recounted that her family was residing in the prime minister’s former home in Kentish Town when the front door was set ablaze on 12 May 2025. “I saw smoke and an orange glow where the front door was,” she stated during testimony in April, highlighting the chaotic aftermath of the attack.
Prosecution’s emphasis on intimidation and risk
Chief prosecutor Frank Ferguson underscored the severity of the offenses, calling them “deliberate and dangerous acts of arson” that targeted Starmer’s properties and a vehicle. He argued that these attacks were not merely about property damage but were designed to intimidate and erode confidence in the government. “Such crimes go beyond physical harm—they aim to destabilize public perception,” Ferguson said.
The conviction of Lavrynovych included charges of damaging two properties by fire with reckless disregard for life, occurring on 11 and 12 May last year. However, he was acquitted of two counts involving intentional arson with the explicit goal of endangering lives. This distinction suggests the prosecution focused on the level of risk posed during the incidents.
El Money’s potential role and unanswered questions
Reports from the Financial Times and BBC hinted at El Money’s possible identity as a Russian diplomat, Evgeny Lyukshin, who may have orchestrated the attacks. While this theory was raised, no formal charges were brought against him, leaving the connection to Moscow speculative. Investigators noted that tracing the handler’s involvement required piecing together fragmented digital evidence, as the link to Russia was indirect.
The police recovered over 320 Telegram messages between El Money and Lavrynovych, dating back to September 2024. These communications revealed the handler’s strategy to manipulate the men into carrying out the attacks, with instructions to film the incidents and disseminate them widely. After the fires, El Money urged Lavrynovych to flee the UK, signaling an attempt to avoid detection.
Arrests and future sentencing
Lavrynovych was apprehended at his Sydenham residence on 13 May 2025, while Carpiuc was detained at Luton airport on 17 May as he prepared to return to Romania. The duo’s guilt was confirmed after a seven-hour and 26-minute deliberation, resulting in unanimous verdicts. The next step in the case involves sentencing, which will take place at the Old Bailey on Friday.
Starmer himself addressed the incident during prime minister’s questions in May, framing the attacks as “an assault on all of us, on democracy, and the values we stand for.” A government statement echoed this sentiment, labeling the arson as an “abhorrent attack” and praising the collaboration between law enforcement and the Crown Prosecution Service in bringing the perpetrators to justice.
Broader implications for security and international ties
The case has raised questions about the influence of Russian networks on UK domestic affairs. While the evidence points to a possible link, the absence of concrete charges against El Money leaves room for further investigation. Prosecutors acknowledged the difficulty of proving a direct connection to Moscow, as the handler’s involvement remained hidden behind encrypted channels.
As the sentencing approaches, the focus will remain on the men’s actions and their perceived intent. The trial has underscored the role of digital communication in modern criminal activities, with the use of Telegram illustrating how remote coordination can lead to tangible harm. The events also highlight the importance of international collaboration in tracking suspects who may operate across borders, using cryptocurrency and encrypted messaging to evade scrutiny.
The outcome of the case serves as a reminder of the evolving nature of threats to political figures, even in the absence of clear ideological motives. As the UK continues to navigate complex security challenges, this incident underscores the need for vigilance in identifying and addressing foreign influence through both property and public perception.