PoraValit
Home/War/Articles

Court upholds prison terms for two Udmurtia teenagers in cell tower arson case

By boriskov · Published on June 24, 2026

Court upholds prison terms for two Udmurtia teenagers in cell tower arson case

The Fourth Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction in Nizhny Novgorod reviewed appeals against the sentence handed to two young men from Udmurtia convicted under the article on sabotage and, overall, left their prison terms unchanged. The court’s website published the information, which was noted by Mediazona.

According to the court’s statement, the defendants were accused of the arson of a cellular communications tower in Votkinsk. The court identified them as A. D. Budilov and K. A. Khlyupin, without disclosing their full names. Both were minors at the time of the offense.

Investigators say the teenagers agreed to set fire to a mobile base station in exchange for money. According to the prosecution’s version, they then learned the exact location of the site, prepared gasoline, went there and carried out the arson.

The investigators also allege that the youths recorded their actions on a phone camera and then sent the video to their handlers. The court’s statement adds that the damaged tower provided communications, among others, to a military unit guarding a defense industry enterprise.

In March 2026, the Supreme Court of Udmurtia sentenced Budilov to six years and nine months in a general-regime penal colony, and Khlyupin to six years and three months.

The ruling was later appealed by both the defense and the state prosecutor. The prosecutor argued that the court should have decided on confiscating money allegedly used in committing the offense. Khlyupin’s lawyer, for his part, sought to overturn the sentence, arguing that his client had acted out of self-interest and did not understand the possible consequences of the arson for the country’s security.

The appellate panel concluded that the trial court had unjustifiably failed to address the issue of confiscating the money. For that reason, this part of the ruling was отменed and sent for a new review, while the rest of the judgment was left in force.

Share this article