Punishing the Crocus perpetrators: The closed-door trial over Russia’s deadliest terrorist attack in decades ends with 15 life sentences and lingering questions
On March 22, 2024, a group of terrorists stormed the Crocus City Hall entertainment complex outside Moscow, opened fire on the crowd, and then set fire to the building. At least 150 people were killed, making this the deadliest terrorist attack in modern Russian history since the 2004 Beslan school siege. The four gunmen stood trial alongside 15 alleged accomplices, and on March 12, 2026, a Moscow court sentenced nearly all the defendants to life in prison. Meduza looks back on how the closed-door trial unfolded and examines the questions left unanswered after the verdict.
Inside the closed-door trial
The trial for the Crocus City Hall terrorist attack began in Moscow on August 4, 2025, with three judges from the 2nd Western District Military Court presiding. Although more than 100 journalists attended the first hearing, prosecutors immediately requested a closed-door trial, claiming that accomplices were plotting “demonstrative terrorist attacks” against those involved in the proceedings.
You’re currently reading Meduza, the world’s largest independent Russian news outlet. Every day, we bring you essential coverage from Russia and beyond. Explore our reporting here and follow us wherever you get your news.
Of the 19 defendants, four were charged with carrying out the attack: Dalerdzhon Mirzoyev, Saidakrami Rachabalizoda, Shamsidin Fariduni, and Muhammadsobir Fayzov. All are Tajik nationals with no more than a high-school education who had moved to Russia for work. The oldest, Mirzoyev (32), drove a taxi, while the youngest, Fayzov (19), worked at a barbershop in the Ivanovo region. Both Fariduni and Rachabalizoda lived in Podolsk, a city outside Moscow; Fariduni worked in a factory, while Rachabalizoda was officially unemployed at the time of the attack. All but Fayzov had previous problems with the law: Mirzoyev and Rachabalizoda had committed migration violations, while Fariduni had served time in Tajikistan for harassment.
The remaining 15 defendants were charged as accomplices:
- Khusen Medov and Dzhbrail Aushev, both from Russia’s Ingushetia, were accused of converting deactivated weapons into live firearms for the attack;
- Shakhromdzhon Gadoev, Zubaydullo Ismoilov, Khusein Khamidov, and brothers Umedzhon and Mustakim Soliyev, were accused of supplying weapons and ammunition;
- Yakubdhzoni Davlatkohn Yusufzoda, Nazrimad Lutfulloi, Dzhumakhon Kurbonov, and Mukhammad Zoir Sharipzoda were accused of financing the preparations;
- Alisher Kasimov was accused of renting housing to the main suspects;
- The Islomov family — Dilovar, his brother Aminchon, and their father Isroil — were accused of selling the attackers the Renault getaway car.
Shamsidin Fariduni was identified as the ringleader among the perpetrators. According to a TASS source, he allegedly joined the Islamic State (ISIS) and trained in Turkey. Then, he was purportedly instructed to “show what he was capable of” by organizing the Crocus attack. The prosecution claimed that Fariduni purchased the getaway car, obtained weapons, conducted reconnaissance at the site, and drugged the other three gunmen — a claim supported by Mirzoyev’s testimony.
While the main suspects pleaded guilty or partially guilty, the other defendants sought leniency, maintaining they were unaware of the planned attack. Those accused of financial involvement claimed they believed the money was meant to help women and children in Palestine. One defendant, Dzhbrail Aushev, attempted suicide while in pre-trial custody. Alisher Kasimov insisted that he had simply listed his apartment for rent on the classifieds website Avito. Dilovar Islomov stated that he had sold his Renault to his brother-in-law — Shamsidin Fariduni — and had turned himself in to the police as soon as the car appeared in news reports about the attack.
The prosecution, meanwhile, insisted that all of the accomplices were aware of the plot to some degree. A protected witness also testified against Kasimov and the Islomov family during the proceedings.
“I understand that the defense is simply doing its job, but their words and the defendants’ statements sound rather cynical and are a mockery of the deceased,” Lyudmila Ayvar, a lawyer for the victims, told Kommersant. “It’s unpleasant to see 19 grown men, all ruled fit to stand trial and perfectly self-aware, downplaying their roles in every possible way and trying to appear naive.”
20 years to life
It was clear from the start that the prosecution would seek life sentences for the gunmen. But the sentencing of their alleged accomplices remained a point of intrigue. In mid-February, prosecutors requested life in prison for 15 of the 19 defendants. The exceptions were Alisher Kasimov (for whom they sought 22 years and 10 months) and the Islomovs (19 years and 11 months). There was also talk of confiscating Kasimov’s apartment and depriving both him and the Islomov family of their Russian citizenship.
On March 12, the court sentenced 15 defendants to life in prison. Kasimov received 22.5 years, while Dilovar, Amichon, and Isroil Islomov were each sentenced to 19 years and 11 months. On top of their life sentences, the four gunmen — Fariduni, Mirzoyev, Rachabalizoda, and Fayzov — were each fined 990,000 rubles (more than $12,000), and ordered to serve their terms in a maximum-security penal colony.
Separately, victims of the attack and their families have filed lawsuits against the perpetrators seeking 150 to 200 million rubles ($1.89–$2.5 million) in compensation. However, the chances of recovering any money are slim. “The terrorists have no assets, and their ‘employers’ won’t be compensating the victims for damages. Therefore, these punishments will likely remain on paper,” lawyer Irina Fast told Izvestia.
The victims appear to recognize this reality. They also sought to freeze the assets of the Crocus City Hall owners, billionaire Aras Agalarov and his son Emin, citing the fact that almost half the victims died not from gunfire, but from the fire in the concert hall, where several emergency exits were locked. However, this request was denied.
Furthermore, the victims are pushing for harsher sentences for the four gunmen to ensure that they won’t be eligible for parole after 25 years. They also urged the court not to revoke the Russian citizenship of Kasimov and the Islomov family members, for fear that they could be transferred to their home countries (Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, respectively), where their prison sentences could potentially be reduced.
Lingering questions
Perhaps the main question looming over the entire trial was the “Ukrainian connection” to the Crocus attack — an allegation Russian authorities insisted upon. Although ISIS-K — an Afghanistan-based wing of the Islamic State — claimed responsibility, President Vladimir Putin and top intelligence officials maintained that Kyiv had instigated the attack in its own interests. For its part, Ukraine categorically denied any involvement.
As BBC News Russian noted, the “Ukrainian connection” eventually made its way into the case materials, although it only appeared a year after the attack. This theory was only corroborated publicly by the testimony of the gunmen themselves, who were brutally beaten following their arrests.
Rachabalizoda testified that they communicated with a handler over Telegram, who used the pseudonym “Saifullo.” Allegedly, Saifullo initially convinced the gunmen to carry out an attack “in the interests of Muslims,” but later admitted that a “Ukrainian state entity” had ordered it. Saifullo purportedly ordered the gunmen to flee to Ukraine, promising them a reward of one million rubles each.
Taken together, the Investigative Committee’s version of events is as follows: the Crocus City Hall attack was orchestrated by the Ukrainian security services to destabilize Russia. The direct organization (including recruitment) was handled by six “Central Asian nationals,” some of whom used pseudonyms. They are currently located abroad in unknown locations.
The name “Saifullo” was rarely mentioned in reports from the trial. TASS referred to Saifullo as a “foreign handler” who remained at large. In short, neither the Investigative Committee’s statements nor court records clarify Saifullo’s identity, his location, or even his existence. The alleged link between the terrorists’ “handlers” and Ukraine also remains unsubstantiated.
