The Eagle S ship’s captain, Georgian national Davit Vadatchkoria (C) arrive at District Court in Helsinki, Finland on Monday morning August 25, 2025. Photo: Roni Rekomaa / Lehtikuva
- Next Article Storm Amy to bring strong winds and rain across Finland
Helsinki District Court has ruled that it lacks the authority to hear criminal charges against the captain and crew of the Eagle S oil tanker over the destruction of undersea cables in the Gulf of Finland.
The decision brings an end to criminal proceedings in Finland related to an incident that caused extensive economic damage when five submarine cables were severed on 25 December 2024.
The Eagle S, which is registered in the Cook Islands and is associated with Russia’s shadow fleet, was travelling from Ust-Luga to the Mediterranean when its anchor dragged along the seabed for nearly 90 kilometres within Finland’s exclusive economic zone.
The prosecution had demanded unconditional prison sentences of at least two and a half years for the ship’s captain Davit Vadatchkoria, and first officers Robert Egizaryan and Santosh Kumar Chaurasia. Charges included aggravated sabotage and serious interference with telecommunications.
All three men denied the charges during hearings at Helsinki District Court between August and September.
The court concluded that the case involved a maritime incident that occurred outside Finnish territorial waters and before the vessel entered Finland’s area of criminal jurisdiction.
“Because the alleged crimes took place before the vessel arrived in Finnish territorial waters, Finnish criminal law cannot be applied,” the court said in its written ruling.
The case was reviewed under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which distinguishes between territorial waters, exclusive economic zones, and the high seas. Jurisdiction over incidents in international waters typically belongs to either the flag state of the vessel or the home countries of the crew.
The Eagle S was in Finland’s exclusive economic zone when the cable damage occurred, but not in its territorial sea. The court found that Finnish law could not apply under these conditions, even though the ship later entered Finnish waters.
The Finnish authorities argued that the vessel entered voluntarily, but the defence claimed it had been forced to do so. The court ruled that this point was irrelevant to the question of jurisdiction.
Investigators had spent half a year examining whether the anchor was intentionally or negligently dragged across the seabed. The prosecution claimed the crew should have noticed the anchor had dropped, as the ship’s speed and engine RPMs had declined. The defence said the speed change was due to an engine fault and denied any awareness of anchor deployment.
The court found no evidence that the crew had used the anchor deliberately to damage cables. It also noted that the consequences in Finland did not meet the legal threshold for either sabotage or aggravated sabotage.
“There has been no claim that the anchor was used in a deliberate manner to damage cables,” the ruling stated. “There was no disruption to energy supply or telecommunications of the kind required to fulfil the criteria for aggravated sabotage.”
The court accepted that the incident had caused substantial financial damage in Finland. Claims for compensation were said to reach tens of millions of euros. The economic harm met the definition for aggravated criminal damage, but the court ruled that even this did not give it criminal jurisdiction.
“Given that the alleged failures were related to the defendants’ duties aboard the vessel, the case must be treated as a maritime accident under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,” the court said. “Criminal jurisdiction therefore belongs to the vessel’s flag state or the defendants’ states of nationality.”
All criminal charges were left unexamined. As a result, the Finnish state must now pay approximately €195,000 in legal costs for the defence.
The seamen were subject to a travel ban during the nearly nine-month investigation and trial. These restrictions were lifted on 12 September following the end of proceedings. None of the defendants remain in Finland.
The incident, which took place on Christmas Day, caused damage to several critical data and electricity cables. The court heard expert testimony that disruption could have caused short blackouts and higher electricity prices in Finland, but that such an outcome would have required other simultaneous system failures.
“The risk was not insignificant,” the court said. “But it would have required additional serious disruptions to the energy system along with cold and calm weather, which was not the case.”
While the case is now closed in Finland, the possibility of charges in the Cook Islands or the crew’s home countries remains.
HT
- Next Article Storm Amy to bring strong winds and rain across Finland
Source: www.helsinkitimes.fi
