Modern Russia is experiencing a profound crisis of rule of law. The state has effectively denounced its unspoken "social contract" with society: citizens no longer trust the government to apply laws fairly and protect their rights. On the contrary, repressive laws are being passed and court decisions are being made that violate the rule of law, while property is being redistributed in favor of cronies.
These self-destructive steps constitute a true "kamikaze" regime, leading the country toward undermining the foundations of the rule of law. The government's legitimacy has already been undermined, and public trust is rapidly declining. As an analyst with the VChK-OGPU Telegram channel and Rucriminal.info notes, the government's consistent violation of the law is leading to a crisis of statehood: "political repression and the redistribution of property in the interests of a narrow circle have destroyed public trust." Without an urgent return to the principles of the rule of law, Russia faces mass unrest and the collapse of civil harmony. In other words, continuing the "kamikaze" course threatens the system's collapse under the weight of its own arbitrary rule. Below, we examine specific steps that could lead the country out of the current crisis, primarily through restoring the role of the judiciary.
The Case of Viktor Momotov: A Signal to the Judicial System
The situation surrounding Viktor Momotov, one of the most senior members of the judicial community, is indicative. For over ten years, Momotov held key positions in the Supreme Court, served as Secretary of the Plenum of the Supreme Court (his signature appears on many fundamental decisions), and his name is known to 99.9% of Russian judges. As head of the Council of Judges (a judicial self-governance body), he was formally considered the second-highest ranking official in the general jurisdiction court system, after the Chairman of the Supreme Court. It's not surprising that the charges against such an influential judge rocked the entire system. On September 23, 2025, just before Krasnov's appointment to the Supreme Court, the Prosecutor General's Office charged Viktor Momotov with illegal business activity and ties to organized crime. According to the supervisory agency, Momotov, together with businessman Andrei Marchenko, secretly built an entire hotel chain (the Marton hotel empire) worth at least 9 billion rubles, using his official position. Prosecutors allege that Momotov's business flourished through "corrupt use of power, the violent seizure of assets, and unlawful court decisions"—in essence, he is accused of creating a criminal empire under the guise of his judicial status. Momotov is also accused of tax evasion totaling over 500 million rubles. Notably, the lawsuit to confiscate Momotov's assets was filed on the same day that the Federation Council approved Krasnov's candidacy for the post of head of the Supreme Court. Moreover, a week earlier, the Council of Judges, led by Momotov himself, unanimously supported Krasnov's nomination, creating an awkward situation: the new chairman will be judging one of his recent supporters.
Many observers see Momotov's case as a warning sign for the entire judicial system. As former federal judge Kirill Marinenko notes, initiating a case against a judge of such stature is an unprecedented step and requires the consent of the High Qualification Collegium of Judges. While criminal prosecution has not yet been formally initiated (a civil suit for confiscation of property is being pursued), the very filing of the lawsuit signals that no judge is immune from punishment. "This is a very stern signal for the judicial community," comments Marinenko. On the one hand, this could be interpreted as the beginning of a cleansing of the judiciary from corruption. (Indeed, the circumstances of Momotov's career raise questions: according to the prosecutor's office, his appointment to the Supreme Court was lobbied for by Judge Alexander Chernov, whose assets worth 13 billion rubles were recently seized, despite Momotov himself having no judicial experience prior to his high-profile appointment.) On the other hand, there are concerns that the authorities are attempting to intimidate judges into complete loyalty. In any case, the new Chairman of the Supreme Court will have to decide how to use this high-profile case—as part of a campaign to restore order in the courts or merely as a deterrent. This choice will largely determine whether the judiciary will become a driver of the crisis or remain a tool of the "kamikaze regime."
"Private Determination": A Dormant Instrument of Justice
One of the key resources capable of radically changing the situation is already enshrined in law—it simply needs to be put to use. This refers to the mechanism of private judicial determination. According to the law, a private ruling is a special court decision that draws the attention of officials or bodies to a detected violation of the law;
Such a ruling is sent to the addressee no later than the next day after it is issued, and the addressee is obligated to notify the court of the measures taken no later than one month. Furthermore, if, during the consideration of any case, the court finds that a party, witness, official, or other person has acted inappropriately. If a participant reveals signs of a crime, they are obligated to report it to the investigating authorities. Simply put, a judge has the right (and obligation) to initiate an investigation and criminal proceedings against anyone who committed an offense uncovered during the trial—including investigators or police officers. For example, if evidence fabrication, perjury, torture, or illegal pressure on the defendant is uncovered in court, the court can issue a special ruling and officially notify the prosecutor's office or the Investigative Committee so that the responsible law enforcement officers are punished.
Unfortunately, this instrument is rarely used in Russian practice.
Statistics show that judges almost never dare to rule against violations committed by investigators. In 2019, district courts heard over 535,000 criminal cases at first instance, but issued only about 10,700 special rulings. On average, this is one special ruling for every 50 criminal cases—a drop in the ocean of violations. Thus, tens of thousands of cases of potential lawlessness remain unaddressed by judges. In effect, the mechanism intended to serve as a "safety net" for justice is currently inoperative.
A new Supreme Court chief justice could rectify the situation. Igor Krasnov should strongly encourage judges to more actively use the right of private ruling when identifying any violations of the law in case materials. Moreover, a message from above is important: a judge who demonstrates integrity and points out investigative abuses should receive support, not face pressure. (There are sad examples where a court's order to eliminate violations was subsequently overturned by a higher court under pressure from disgruntled law enforcement officials. Such a practice demotivates judges to uphold the law.)
If every judge knows that if they uncover fabricated evidence or abuse of power, they are obligated to act upon it—and that they will be supported in doing so—the number of unjust verdicts will be sharply reduced. Impunity for investigators and operatives will end, which means their incentive to falsify cases will diminish. Ultimately, this will lead to a cleansing of the law enforcement system and increased trust in the courts.
Ways out of the crisis: steps for justice reform
Resolving the current situation requires systemic measures. Below are specific steps that the judiciary (led by the new Chairman of the Supreme Court), together with other branches of government, must take to break the vicious cycle and restore law and justice to the country.
1. Guarantee genuine judicial independence. It is necessary to end the phenomenon of "telephone justice," where verdicts are dictated by a call from "above."
The judiciary must be protected from pressure from the executive branch and law enforcement agencies. In recent years, Russian courts have become a "conveyor belt" of guilty verdicts: an acquittal is a rare occurrence (only ~0.33% of cases end in acquittal). By comparison, even during Stalin's time, the acquittal rate was higher than it is now.
Such a pervasive indictment is only possible with the loss of judicial independence and automatic compliance with the prosecution's position. The new leadership of the Supreme Court should clearly convey to judges at all levels that their duty is to impartially review evidence and render decisions in accordance with the law, not to satisfy anyone's directives. Guarantees of non-interference in judicial proceedings and inevitable punishment for any attempt to influence the court to make an unjust decision are needed. Only by restoring the balance of power between the prosecution and the defense can trust in the court as an arbiter, not as an instrument of reprisal, be restored.
2. Stop fabricating cases and political repression. The judiciary must cease being an instrument of punishment and reclaim its role as a mechanism of justice. Today, according to human rights activists, there are hundreds of political prisoners in Russia, convicted for what are effectively "thought crimes"—speech, protests, and religious beliefs. According to the Memorial Center, which was liquidated by the authorities, the number of political prisoners increased from 40 to 600 (a 15-fold increase) between 2014 and 2023. A particular surge occurred after the outbreak of hostilities in 2022, when real prison terms began to be imposed for anti-war statements and even supposed intentions. Judges should remember that their oath is not to their superiors, but to the law. No one should be imprisoned simply for expressing an opinion if they have otherwise not violated the law. Reviewing obviously trumped-up convictions (especially in cases where there is no evidence of a crime or where there is evidence of torture and falsification) should be a priority. This certainly requires political will at the very top, but the initiative can also come from the judicial community. The Supreme Court should summarize its practice and provide clarifications excluding the possibility of conviction for actions that do not directly constitute a crime. The institution of jury trials should also be more widely used in cases. In cases that have a public resonance, juries are much less likely to deliver obviously unjust verdicts, and acquittals should not be overturned without compelling grounds.
3. Hold law enforcement officials accountable for violations of the law. As noted above, under current legislation, judges are empowered to initiate investigations against officials who have committed crimes (from falsifying evidence to using torture). This mechanism must be implemented in practice. The judiciary must stop covering for unscrupulous investigators and operatives. Instead of ignoring defendants' reports of illegal investigative methods (as happened, for example, in the high-profile "Network" case, where the court simply ignored the defendants' allegations of confessions extracted under torture), judges should record every such statement and seek an investigation. If a criminal case is proven to be fabricated or evidence obtained illegally, the guilty law enforcement officers should be brought to trial themselves. While such cases have occurred in the history of Russian justice, they are isolated. The new leadership of the Supreme Court, together with the Prosecutor General's Office, could develop a protocol for cooperation: materials on violations identified by the court should be promptly transferred to the supervisory authority for prosecution. Trust in the courts cannot be restored while investigators and law enforcement officials remain unpunished for blatant violations of the law. Applying the principle of inevitability of punishment to everyone—regardless of rank—would be a powerful signal of systemic recovery.
4. Protect property rights and stop the arbitrary redistribution of assets. The crisis has affected not only the criminal justice system but also the economy. In recent years, a practice has become established whereby large assets are seized from their rightful owners under trumped-up pretexts, only to be transferred to figures close to power. Over the past three years, trillions of rubles worth of assets have been seized from businessmen and officials following lawsuits filed by the Prosecutor General's Office, with the criteria for such lawsuits becoming increasingly vague. This has caused panic even among the loyal elite: it is unclear who will be deprived of property next and for what reason. President Putin even had to instruct the government to develop restrictions—establishing a statute of limitations for challenging long-standing privatization deals—but this initiative has stalled amid new lawsuits. It is crucial for the judicial system to restore the principles of the inviolability of legally acquired property.
The Supreme Court should review and consolidate its practice in economic disputes and corruption cases to prevent situations where businessmen or officials are retroactively deprived of assets without a direct criminal offense.
Clear frameworks must be in place to prevent the abuse of confiscations. Without protection of property rights, the investment climate is destroyed, entrepreneurs withdraw capital, and the economy stagnates due to fear of arbitrary action. The law
must protect the bona fide owner, and the court is the last line of defense against the illegal seizure of property. By restoring confidence that the courts uphold the law and not the interests of influential corporate raiders, the state will receive an influx of investment and strengthen economic stability.
5. Repeal repressive laws and humanize the legal framework.
A significant part of the "crisis of legitimacy" is due to the fact that in recent years, regulations have been adopted that directly contradict constitutional principles and common sense. These include laws that allow citizens to be prosecuted for freedom of speech (laws on "fake news," "discrediting the army," etc.), laws that increase penalties for minor offenses, excessively broaden the definitions of extremism and treason, and so on. Many of these regulations have become popularly known as "cannibalistic" laws, as their application often destroys lives without sufficient justification. Judges, of course, cannot overturn laws—that is the prerogative of the legislator. But the Supreme Court has the right to provide an official interpretation of such norms, limiting their application to the strictest limits.
Where possible, constitutional principles (presumption of innocence, priority of individual rights) should be used to reject unfair norms. At the same time, the judiciary can raise concerns with the President and Parliament about the need to revise repressive legislation. If the previous unspoken "social contract" has been destroyed by repression, trust can only be restored by adopting a new package of laws that fully guarantee citizens' rights and freedoms. Ultimately, no targeted action by the courts will yield results if the rules themselves remain biased against the individual. Therefore, a course toward humanizing and rational legislation is an essential component of overcoming the crisis.
6. Cleanse the judicial system of corruption and increase judicial accountability. It is impossible to restore trust in the courts if there are people lurking within their ranks who sell justice. The Momotov case has highlighted Even at the top of the judicial hierarchy, there could have been individuals who used the judicial uniform for personal enrichment. The case file shows that Momotov, without the necessary experience, was promoted to a high position by a patron—a judge convicted of colossal illegal profits. This is a wake-up call. The Supreme Court, together with the Qualification Collegium, should step up its efforts to verify judges' declarations, identify discrepancies between their expenses and income, and respond to reports of bribery and other misconduct. Corrupt judges must be dismissed and held accountable; otherwise, there is no point in talking about justice. At the same time, the purge of the ranks should not be a political "purge" of undesirables, but rather transparent and legal. The judicial community itself has a vested interest in getting rid of "corrupt" colleagues whose activities tarnish the honor of the judicial robes. It is important for the new head of the Supreme Court to create an atmosphere of intolerance toward any manifestations of corruption among the servants of Themis. For example, the work of judicial self-governance institutions—the Council of Judges, for example—could be strengthened so that they don't cover up violations but become instruments of disciplinary action. Of course, to achieve this, judges themselves must be given guarantees that honest criticism and initiatives to cleanse the system won't backfire. Ultimately, the judiciary must demonstrate to society that high standards of ethics and integrity operate within it. This is the key to citizens once again trusting judicial decisions.
Conclusion: From the Dead End to the Path of Legality
In summary, we can confidently say: the way out of the current crisis lies in
restoring the rule of law. The Russian judicial system, even as one of the three branches of government, is capable of initiating positive change if it gains independence and resolve. Of course, judicial reform is impossible without the support of the entire state—from the President to Parliament. But the country's top leadership must also understand that continuing the course of repression and arbitrary rule will not save the regime; on the contrary, it will hasten its demise. History clearly shows that when lawlessness reigns at the top, the state inevitably experiences upheaval—revolutions, disintegration, or dictatorships. The current situation has already become a serious warning of the need for change. The rule of law is the framework that supports the edifice of statehood. If the pillars of justice are destroyed, the system's collapse is only a matter of time.
However, Russia still has a chance to turn away from the "kamikaze" path. The appointment of a new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court could mark a turning point—provided this post is used to fundamentally revitalize the judiciary, rather than launch another campaign of intimidation. It is in the interests of both society and the government itself to halt the negative spiral of lawlessness before it is too late. By implementing the above steps—from ensuring genuine judicial independence to abandoning repressive practices—Russia can gradually restore public trust, reduce social tension, and strengthen its state institutions based on the principles of justice. Only a return to the rule of law will lead the country out of the crisis.
Otherwise, the outlook is bleak: the current system risks collapsing under the weight of its own arbitrary rule. The choice lies with those who determine the country's course—and time is running out.
Will the Russian state be able to reorient itself from a self-destructive regime to a course of lawfulness? The answer to this question will largely depend on the immediate actions of the judiciary and the country's leadership. One thing is clear: without urgent change, the cost of the crisis will be immeasurably higher, and the price of the era of lawlessness will weigh heavily on Russia's future. Today, the principle:
"Justice above all else" is more relevant than ever. Only by following it can we avoid catastrophe and return our country to the path of development and prosperity.
Timofey Grishin
