Court hears that anonymous ‘El Money’ allegedly hired Ukrainian and Romanian suspects to target properties linked to the prime minister

In a London courtroom on Wednesday, three men—Roman Lavrynovych, twenty‑two, and Petro Pochynok, thirty‑five, both identified as Ukrainian nationals, alongside Stanislav Carpiuc, twenty‑seven, a Romanian citizen—sat with bowed heads before interpreters as the prosecution, led by Duncan Atkinson KC, formally opened the trial concerning alleged plots to ignite two residences and a motor vehicle that media reports have linked to Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

According to the prosecution’s narrative, the operation was coordinated by an unidentified Russian‑speaking individual who adopted the moniker ‘El Money’, purportedly offering financial incentives to the three defendants in exchange for executing the incendiary attacks that occurred in May of the previous year.

The court was presented with communications allegedly containing offers of payment, which the prosecution contends demonstrate that ‘El Money’ functioned as the strategic architect, while the defendants uniformly denied any involvement, asserting that the accusations rest upon misinterpreted messages and unsubstantiated speculation.

Despite the gravity of the charges, the evidence disclosed to date remains limited to intercepted electronic exchanges and the circumstantial linkage of the targeted properties to the prime minister, a factor that the defense argues is insufficient to establish a concrete conspiratorial link between the accused and the alleged sponsor.

The proceedings, which spotlight a cross‑border web of alleged criminal collaboration involving individuals from Ukraine and Romania and a shadowy figure operating under a pseudonym, underscore the challenges confronting law‑enforcement agencies in disentangling genuine security threats from politically charged narratives that often exploit high‑profile names to justify extensive investigative resources.

Consequently, the trial may ultimately serve as a litmus test for the judiciary’s capacity to balance the imperative of protecting public officials against the risk of inflating unverified conspiracies into criminal prosecutions, a balance that, if mishandled, could further erode public confidence in both security institutions and democratic discourse.

Published: April 29, 2026