TL;DR
Get everyday essentials delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
The Riga City Court sentenced Polina Kamleva, a resident of Rēzekne, to six years in prison for financing an armed conflict. Investigators said a €43 transfer was intended to help buy a drone-jamming device for Russian forces; Kamleva denied having criminal intent, and prosecutors had requested an eight-year term.
The Riga City Court sentenced Polina Kamleva, a resident of Rēzekne, to six years in prison for financing an armed conflict, according to reporting by Latvian outlet Delfi cited by Meduza. Investigators said a €43 transfer was intended to help acquire a drone-jamming device for Russian forces; Kamleva told the court she did not intend to finance the Russian army.
The case concerned a transfer of 157 Belarusian rubles, worth about €43, made from an acquaintance’s personal account in Belarus. Investigators said Kamleva asked him to send the money because transfers from Latvian banks to Russian banks were not possible. They linked the payment to a proposed purchase of a mobile electronic warfare system, described in the report as a drone-jamming device for Russian troops.
According to investigators cited by Delfi, a WhatsApp exchange in December 2024 showed Kamleva agreeing to help raise money for military equipment for the Russian army. The person who approached her was an acquaintance from the Russian military-patriotic center Kaskad, the report said. Latvia’s State Security Service detained Kamleva in December 2025.
In her final statement, Kamleva disputed that the messages established criminal intent. She said she was unemployed and in serious psychological distress when asked to help. Prosecutors had sought eight years in prison. Latvian criminal law provides a maximum sentence of up to 10 years for financing an armed conflict, according to the report.
A Small Transfer, a Serious Charge
The sentence illustrates how Latvian authorities and courts may treat financial assistance linked to Russian military activity, even when the sum involved is small. The case centers not only on the amount transferred but on what investigators say the payment was meant to support and whether Kamleva understood that purpose.
The outcome also sits within Latvia’s broader security concerns related to Russia’s war against Ukraine. However, the available report does not establish that the money ultimately purchased equipment or that the device reached Russian forces. The court’s sentence reflects the conviction in this individual case; it should not be read as proof of those further outcomes.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How Investigators Traced the Payment
The reported sequence began with a request in a December 2024 WhatsApp exchange. Investigators said Kamleva agreed to assist with fundraising after an acquaintance connected to Kaskad asked for help obtaining a mobile electronic warfare system. She then contacted someone living in Belarus to make the transfer on her behalf.
Delfi previously reported that Kamleva was a member of the Latvian Russian Union Party and described her as a pro-Russian activist. Those descriptions are background reported by the outlet, rather than details that by themselves establish the criminal allegation. The case was brought under Latvia’s offense of financing an armed conflict, which carries a potential prison term of up to 10 years.
“The money was intended to help acquire a mobile electronic warfare system for the Russian army.”
— Investigators, as cited by Delfi
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Intent and Equipment Remain Disputed
The available reporting does not provide the court’s full written reasoning, the precise legal findings supporting the conviction, or whether Kamleva plans to appeal. It also does not say whether the 157 Belarusian rubles were ultimately used to purchase equipment, or whether any device was delivered to Russian forces.
Kamleva’s account and investigators’ interpretation differ on the key issue of criminal intent. Her statement says the messages did not clearly show that the money was meant for Russian forces. The report does not include a full transcript of the messages or additional evidence from the trial, so those details cannot be independently assessed from the material available.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Appeal Status and Court Reasoning
The next developments to watch are whether Kamleva appeals the six-year sentence and whether the court publishes a detailed explanation of its findings. The source report does not state an appeal deadline or say whether an appeal has been filed.
Further information about the judgment could clarify how the court assessed the WhatsApp exchange, the transfer routed through Belarus, and Kamleva’s claim that she lacked criminal intent. Until those details are reported, the confirmed outcome is the sentence and the competing accounts of what the payment was meant to support.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
Who was sentenced by the Latvian court?
Polina Kamleva, a resident of Rēzekne, was sentenced by the Riga City Court to six years in prison, according to Delfi reporting cited by Meduza.
What was the €43 transfer for, according to investigators?
Investigators said the payment was intended to help obtain a mobile electronic warfare or drone-jamming system for Russian forces. The report does not confirm that the equipment was purchased or delivered.
What did Kamleva say about the allegation?
Kamleva said she had not intended to finance the Russian army and argued that the messages did not clearly establish that purpose. She said she was unemployed and in serious psychological distress when asked to help.
How long had prosecutors requested?
Prosecutors sought eight years in prison. The court imposed a six-year sentence. The source report says Latvia’s law allows a prison term of up to 10 years for financing an armed conflict.
Has Kamleva appealed the sentence?
The available reporting does not say whether she has appealed. Her appeal status and the court’s full written reasoning remain unclear.
Source: rss
Halloween Picks
halloween
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
