Defendant, Eagle S captain Davit Vadatchkoria at Helsinki District Court on 25 August 2025. Photo: Roni Rekomaa / Lehtikuva
- Previous Article Revised figures show deeper rise in poverty from welfare cuts
- Next Article HS: Finnish Navy deploys Israeli Gabriel missile system
Three crew members of the oil tanker Eagle S are facing trial in Helsinki District Court accused of serious criminal damage and disruption to communications infrastructure. The proceedings were attended and reported on by Helsingin Sanomat from inside the courtroom.
Prosecutors allege that Davit Vadatchkoria, the vessel’s captain, along with the first and second mates, were responsible for an incident in which the tanker’s anchor dragged along the seabed for approximately 90 kilometres, damaging five undersea cables in the Gulf of Finland during Christmas 2024.
The crew denies all charges and describes the incident as a maritime accident.
The Eagle S, registered in the Cook Islands and operated under a flag linked to Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet,” departed from Ust-Luga in Russia and was heading towards the Mediterranean. During its voyage, one of the ship’s anchors detached and was dragged along the seafloor, according to prosecutors.
The charges allege gross negligence in both the vessel’s technical condition and the actions of its crew. Prosecutors said the anchor detached because of mechanical failure involving worn or missing safety pins and faults in the winch equipment. They claim the crew failed to respond appropriately despite clear signs of reduced engine RPM and vessel speed.
Authorities said the crew falsely reported that both anchors were raised when contacted by Finnish authorities. They also failed to investigate the mechanical issues properly or take action to prevent damage.
The prosecution is seeking unconditional prison sentences of at least two years and six months for each of the three men.
“The crew ignored basic maritime responsibilities,” said Jukka Rappe, the Deputy Prosecutor General, who ordered the charges. He said Finland has jurisdiction because the alleged threats to critical communication and energy infrastructure occurred within Finnish territory, even though the damage took place outside Finland’s territorial waters.
The defendants remain under a travel ban in Finland. In court, they appeared calm and listened to proceedings with interpreters.
The defence argues that the Helsinki District Court has no jurisdiction. They maintain the anchor accident occurred in international waters and did not involve deliberate sabotage. According to the defence, the damage was caused by a mechanical fault, not intentional action.
The captain’s lawyer stated that the ship had been inspected during drydock before the voyage and that no faults were found in the anchor system at that time. He also argued that any faults identified later by Finland’s Transport and Communications Agency (Traficom) were not visible or known to the captain.
The court also heard that Vadatchkoria only joined the ship two months before the incident and has 20 years of professional experience.
During questioning, the captain told Finnish police he was surprised when the Finnish Coast Guard contacted the vessel and asked whether it was dragging anything. He said the crew had not noticed any problems and believed the anchor was secure.
“When they inspected, the crew found that the locking pin was missing,” he said. “We sent photographs of the broken pin to the shipping company and later provided them to the police.”
He rejected the idea that any crew member would have deliberately tampered with the safety mechanism. “No one could have known that breaking this pin would cause the anchor to fall. If someone had wanted to drop the anchor on purpose, they would have done something else,” he said.
He described the ship’s equipment as functioning properly during earlier operations. According to his account, the anchor had operated normally before and after the incident.
He also expressed confusion over the Coast Guard’s actions. “I expected them to arrive by boat, but they came by helicopter,” he said. “I wonder what would have happened if I had said we were continuing on our planned route and not following their orders.”
The trial is the first in which the crew of a ship suspected of belonging to Russia’s shadow fleet faces criminal charges related to submarine infrastructure damage in the Baltic Sea.
Authorities allege that the anchor dragged across the seabed over a long distance, cutting undersea data and energy cables. Investigators believe the event endangered Finland’s energy security and communication infrastructure.
The defence maintains that the ship’s reduced speed was due to a technical problem in the engine room and not the anchor. The second mate, through his lawyer, said he was unaware of the anchor dragging and had not acted negligently. The first mate echoed that defence, denying all charges and saying the incident was an accident.
Prosecutors clarified that they do not believe the crew deliberately aimed to cut the cables but claim they knowingly failed to meet basic safety obligations that would have prevented the situation.
The court is expected to rule on the question of jurisdiction before deciding on the charges.
HT
- Previous Article Revised figures show deeper rise in poverty from welfare cuts
- Next Article HS: Finnish Navy deploys Israeli Gabriel missile system
Source: www.helsinkitimes.fi
