Starmer Arson Trial: Day One

No, I am not El Money, but if any more people asked me that, then I might start saying that I was. I do not speak Russian. But a lot of people do, and by no means all of them are Russians. For example, a great many of them are Ukrainians. That the defendants had no idea of the target properties’ ties to Keir Starmer must be why they were being held in Belmarsh. As Paul Knaggs writes:

Court 2, Old Bailey: Morning Session

Three men are on trial at the Old Bailey, accused of a coordinated campaign of arson attacks against properties connected to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. Roman Lavrynovych, 22, a Ukrainian national from Sydenham; Petro Pochynok, 35, also Ukrainian, of Holloway Road in Islington; and Stanislav Carpiuc, 27, a Romanian national from Chadwell Heath in east London, all appeared before Mr Justice Garnham on Monday. All three have pleaded not guilty to every charge put before them.

What the prosecution says

Opening the case, leading counsel for the Crown, Duncan Atkinson KC, told the jury that between 8 and 12 May 2025, the three defendants carried out, or conspired to carry out, three separate arson attacks on properties in north London, each of them connected to the Prime Minister.

The first fire was set to a Toyota RAV4 on Countess Road, Kentish Town, on 8 May. The vehicle had previously been owned by Sir Keir. Atkinson told the court that at the time, the fire was not initially treated as suspicious. Three days later, on the night of 11 May, fire broke out at the front door of a converted property on Ellington Street, Islington. Hours after that, in the early hours of 12 May, a second property on Countess Road was targeted: the Kentish Town address where the Prime Minister had lived before entering Downing Street. That property is understood to remain in his ownership.

In both residential cases, the prosecution alleges that white spirit, or a similarly flammable liquid, was used to ignite the front doors. The court was told that the fires and the smoke they produced put the occupants of those homes at risk.

No one was injured in any of the three incidents. Sir Keir was not present at any of the properties.

The money trail and “El Money”

The prosecution’s case rests substantially on phone and digital evidence recovered from the defendants’ devices. Atkinson told the jury that this data placed the defendants at or near the locations of the fires, and included images, video footage, and maps relating to the targeted properties. In the case of Lavrynovych, photographs recovered from his phone on the day before the first fire included an image of a bottle of turpentine substitute, shelving containing similar flammable substances in what the prosecution described as “perhaps a B&Q,” a circled photograph of the Toyota RAV4, a QR code for a cryptocurrency account, and a top-down street map showing the car’s precise location on Countess Road.

CCTV footage from a B&Q in Sydenham was played to the court, showing Lavrynovych shopping there. The prosecution alleges he visited the store more than once to acquire materials for the attacks.

The alleged paymaster for the operation is described by the prosecution as a Russian-speaking contact known only as “El Money.” Atkinson told the jury that the defendants, who did not ordinarily communicate in Russian, used that language exclusively when dealing with this individual.

At least 320 messages between Lavrynovych and “El Money” were recovered from the defendant’s phone, beginning in September 2024 with payments for putting up posters and escalating, the Crown alleges, to payments of up to £2,000 for setting a vehicle on fire.

Among the messages presented to the court, Lavrynovych is alleged to have asked “El Money”: “Hello, long time no speak, have you any jobs?” On 1 May, days before the first fire, “El Money” is alleged to have sent the message: “Hi, did it work? Are you alive?” to which Lavrynovych replied that he was alive but that “it didn’t go well.” He reportedly added that “the job is still on.”

Atkinson was explicit with the jury that identifying “El Money” is not their task. The jury’s sole concern, he said, is whether the three defendants before them are guilty of the charges they face. The prosecution’s position is that the men acted for money, not for political or ideological reasons.

Important context

This case is being led by Counter Terrorism Policing London, reflecting the seriousness of any attack on a sitting Prime Minister’s properties. However, it is important to note that the charges are not brought under counter-terrorism legislation, and authorities have indicated previously that there is no evidence this constitutes an act of terrorism or that there is any confirmed indication of Russian state involvement. Those remain the official positions at this stage.

The alleged involvement of a Russian-speaking payment handler, and the use of an encrypted messaging platform and cryptocurrency, are matters the jury will weigh in due course.

The prosecution has outlined its case. The defence has not yet had the opportunity to challenge the evidence or present its own account. A fourth man, arrested at Stansted Airport in June 2025, was released without charge. A fifth individual, a 19-year-old from Harlow, was detained in January 2026 and remains under investigation.

All three defendants remain in custody at HMP Belmarsh. The trial is expected to continue until the end of May.

We will continue to follow proceedings as they develop. Nothing reported here constitutes any indication of guilt or innocence: that is a matter for the jury alone to decide.

And:

If the morning session at the Old Bailey established the bones of the prosecution’s case against three men accused of targeting properties linked to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, the afternoon put flesh on them.

What emerged was not merely an alleged picture of arson for hire, but something more methodical: operational security instructions, a filmed attack, a return to the scene to document the damage, and a defendant allegedly pressing his paymaster for money to fund his father’s medical treatment while the fires were still warm.

All three defendants deny every charge put to them. The defence has not yet spoken. That must be said plainly, and said first.

“Delete everything. Clean your phone.”

When proceedings resumed after lunch, prosecutor Duncan Atkinson KC turned to messages exchanged between the defendants in the days leading up to the first fire on 8 May 2025. Lavrynovych, the court was told, sent instructions to co-defendant Stanislav Carpiuc: “Delete all messages on Instagram and SMS, you’re going on the job today.” Carpiuc is alleged to have replied: “Mine is all clean.” Lavrynovych pressed further: “All the same check messages, everything, everything. Clean up everything.”

The jury was then shown an alleged exchange between Lavrynovych and Petro Pochynok on the night of 7 to 8 May, the night the Toyota RAV4 formerly owned by the Prime Minister was set alight on Countess Road, Kentish Town. Pochynok is alleged to have asked: “What time shall we meet?” Lavrynovych replied: “To take a video.” When Pochynok confirmed he knew where the road was, Lavrynovych allegedly responded: “Look we won’t talk much on the phone, at that address there’ll be a car. We need to check if there’s a car, if it’s there we do the job.” The final message, the court heard, was simply: “It’s on.”

 Filmed at the scene

The prosecution alleges the defendants did not merely carry out the attack on the RAV4. They filmed it. A still image recovered from a phone shows a figure dressed in black standing before the vehicle, a bright light visible beside him. Atkinson told the jury this was Lavrynovych, filmed by Pochynok, in the act of setting the car alight. / The car’s owner, who had purchased the vehicle from the Prime Minister in September 2024, discovered what had happened when she looked out of her window and saw it burning. Neighbours had already called the fire brigade. The call was timed at 2:53am.

The following morning, Lavrynovych is alleged to have complained to Pochynok that the video “came out badly,” adding: “I will go back today to finish the job. The video is bad. Two seconds and we will get the money.” Pochynok is alleged to have replied that he was busy at work.

Return to the scene

Three nights later, on 11 May, a fire was set at a residential property on Ellington Street, Islington. The Prime Minister had previously been a director of the company holding the freehold on the building. CCTV placed Lavrynovych on Ellington Street just after 2am. A video was recovered, shown to the jury in court, of a person repeatedly attempting to light a match before throwing it onto material placed against a front door soaked in accelerant.

What followed was striking. Later that day, Atkinson told the court, Lavrynovych returned to the scene. Transport for London data and phone location information tracked his journey. He arrived at Highbury and Islington station and messaged his contact: “On the spot.” Then: “Where shall I send it to?” Then: “A photo.” The alleged reply from “El Money” was: “And a video if you get a chance.” An image of the damaged front door at Ellington Street was subsequently recovered from Lavrynovych’s phone. 

“Geranium”

It was the final passage of the prosecution’s afternoon that produced the most striking detail of the day. After the second fire, and before the third, Atkinson told the court that “El Money” sent the defendants a message that read as follows: “You attacked the home of a very high-ranking individual in Britain. I will send the money. You need to leave the city. If police take you, you need to send a secret message: use the word geranium. I will give you money for a week.”

The prosecution also set out that in the aftermath of the second fire, Lavrynovych repeatedly pressed “El Money” for payment. In one exchange, he wrote: “You will tell me how much and when to expect it. Tell me please.” “El Money” replied: “Yes everything is great, you will get your money, don’t worry, I will keep in touch.” Lavrynovych pushed back: “I know this, it’s just it would be better if it were sooner.” The court heard that he told his contact the money was needed for his father’s medical treatment, and that he was waiting for a “crypto screenshot” as confirmation of payment. Atkinson suggested to the jury that this was “pretty forceful language for someone setting the fires because they were afraid of the person telling them to do it.”

Where proceedings stand

The prosecution has now outlined the substance of its case across a full day at the Old Bailey. The evidence presented encompasses phone location data, CCTV footage, recovered images and video, encrypted messages on Telegram, and the cryptocurrency payment trail connecting the defendants to the figure known only as “El Money.” That figure remains unidentified. The jury has been directed that identifying him is not their task.

This case is not prosecuted under counter-terrorism legislation. Authorities have stated previously that there is no confirmed evidence of Russian state direction. Those remain the official positions.

The defence has not yet presented its case. Nothing reported here is any indication of guilt or innocence. Roman Lavrynovych, Petro Pochynok, and Stanislav Carpiuc deny all charges. The jury will decide what the evidence means.