Conviction Divination and fortune-telling services Chelyabinsk, Chelyabinsk Oblast, Russia · 2017

Russia: the victim asked for her ring back and was refused — a curse-removal fraud that became robbery

Request a correction or reply

Record class

Core record

Evidence status

Convicted

Authority role

a woman who approached a stranger in the street under the pretext of removing a curse and took her ring and cash

Organization

Sovetsky District Court of Chelyabinsk (Советский районный суд г. Челябинска)

Archive classification

This is the archive's application of its published inclusion test. The cited record appears below.

The authority is the claimed capacity to remove a curse, and this record belongs with the small group in the archive where the claim fails while the offender is still present. The pretext obtained the ring and the cash; the victim then understood and asked for them back. What the court records next is the moment the spiritual frame stops doing any work: the defendant simply kept the property, knowing she had been seen. From that point the offence is an ordinary robbery, and the judgment classifies it as one. The value of such records is that they mark the boundary of the mechanism — it operates only while the belief holds, and the archive holds three cases now in which it visibly did not.

Curse or witchcraft threat

Scope decision

The defendant is NAMED in the operative part of the published judgment, which is inconsistent with the masking used elsewhere in the same text. In accordance with CODEBOOK §10 that name is not reproduced and the case is identified by number and court — case no. 1-266/2017, Sovetsky District Court of Chelyabinsk. The victim appears as a three-letter initial string and is not named. The offence date is redacted in the published text as «дата»; the year is taken from the case number and judgment date. The offence is charged as open theft under ч.1 ст.161, not fraud, because the taking continued after the victim's demand for return. The case was decided in the special procedure on the defendant's admission, so the facts are those accepted rather than found after contested evidence. The one-year-six-month term is suspended and is not a period in custody; the judgment notes an outstanding conditional early release from an earlier sentence whose subject matter is not stated and about which no inference is drawn. This is a second Chelyabinsk city record, distinct from case no. 1-418/2018 before the Metallurgichesky District Court, which concerns two defendants, different victims and a different method.

Evidence structure

Proceedings

2017-07-02 · conviction and sentence at first instance

Sovetsky District Court of Chelyabinsk, Chelyabinsk Oblast, Russia (Советский районный суд г. Челябинска). The defendant was convicted of open theft — robbery — under ч.1 ст.161 of the Criminal Code. The court found that at about 15:00 she approached a woman she did not know, under the pretext of removing a curse, and took from her a 585-standard gold ring set with a diamond worth 14,000 roubles and 2,000 roubles in cash; that the victim then demanded the return of what had been taken; and that the defendant, realising her conduct was apparent to the victim and keeping the property, thereby stole it openly and left the scene, causing a loss of 16,000 roubles. The case was heard in the special procedure under chapter 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the defendant having applied for it voluntarily after consulting her lawyer and agreeing fully with the charge. She was sentenced to one year six months' deprivation of liberty, suspended under ст.73 with a two-year probationary period and obligations not to change her residence or registration without notice and to report periodically. The judgment records that she was at the time subject to a conditional early release with one year five months and three days outstanding.

Documented coercion mechanisms

a street approach to a woman she did not know, the curse-removal pretext supplying the reason for the encounter
a diamond ring and cash taken directly from the victim under that pretext
the demand for return refused: the court found she kept the property «осознавая, что ее действия очевидны», knowing her conduct was apparent to the victim, which converted the taking from covert to open

Cited record

Sources

court of record criminal judgment Приговор № 1-266/2017 от 2 июля 2017 г. по делу № 1-266/2017, Советский районный суд г. Челябинска (Челябинская область) — Уголовное.: The full text of the criminal judgment, read directly from the Russian judgments database sudact.ru. The court records that «под предлогом снятия порчи подошла к ранее незнакомой ШЕЕ и взяла у нее золотое кольцо 585 пробы с бриллиантом, стоимостью 14 000 рублей, и денежные средства в сумме 2 000 рублей, тем самым завладев имуществом потерпевшей, которая потребовала вернуть ей похищенное». It continues: «ФИО1, осознавая, что ее действия очевидны для ШЕЕ, удерживая имущество потерпевшей при себе, открыто его похитила, с места преступления скрылась и распорядилась им по своему усмотрению, причинив ШЕЕ материальный ущерб в сумме 16 000 рублей». The judgment records the application for the special procedure under chapter 40 and that it was made «добровольно, после консультации с адвокатом». The operative part convicts under ч.1 ст.161 and suspends the eighteen-month term under ст.73 with a two-year probationary period.

Source provenance

Source access and integrity log

This log records source retrieval and file integrity. It does not mean that an automated process independently confirmed every statement in the source.

Source and tier basis: https://sudact.ru/regular/doc/7C5fE3ALgo1R/ Corpus classification: court-of-record; evidentiary role: criminal-judgment.
Retrieval: 2026-07-29 · Preserved; Bound by Fear research cycle 2026-07-29 (Russian-language sweep, page 8; full judgment read via the browser pane; the street approach, the itemised ring and cash, the victim's demand for return and the resulting open-theft classification, the special procedure and the suspended term taken verbatim; the defendant named in the operative part and deliberately not recorded)

Named in this record? Request a correction, report a changed disposition, or submit a response.

Related record

Related cases · Divination and fortune-telling services

Browse all 84 Divination and fortune-telling services records

← Explore all cases