Poland charges group with sabotage on behalf of foreign intelligence
Poland says its role as a hub for aid to Ukraine has made it a target for Russian and Belarusian secret services, accusing Moscow and Minsk of commissioning acts of sabotage such as arson on Polish soil.
Russia and Belarus have rejected such allegations.
The prosecutors' office said the trigger for the investigation came from information uncovered during a probe into the activities of Ukrainian citizen Serhii S, who was jailed earlier this year for planning sabotage on behalf of Russia.
"The evidence obtained in this case indicated a suspicion that an organised criminal group operating in Poland engaged in recruitment and organisation of sabotage activities for foreign intelligence agencies," the spokesperson said in a statement.
"The actions of foreign intelligence agencies were aimed at generating public unrest and creating a sense of helplessness among state authorities through sabotage and subversion."
Prosecutors said that there were three Polish defendents (Kamil K, Dawid P and Lukasz K) and three Belarusians (Stepan K, Andrei B, Yaraslau S). Polish privacy laws prevent media from publishing the surnames of people charged with crimes.
The indictment relates, among other things, to an arson attack allegedly commissioned by a foreign intelligence agency on a pallet storage facility in Marki, central Poland, in April 2024, prosecutors said.
It also relates to attempted arson at a warehouse in Gdansk in March 2024, which was allegedly commissioned by foreign intelligence, and arson attacks on a restaurant in Gdynia in 2023.
Four of the defendants were charged with acts of sabotage commissioned by foreign intelligence. The group also faced other charges related to arms trafficking, drug trafficking, and other criminal offences.
Stepan K and Dawid P pleaded not guilty, the statement said. Andrei B, Yaraslau S and Lukasz K partially pleaded guily, while Kamil K admitted to all the charges against him.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
5 minutes ago
- The Independent
Policing must strike a balance between transparency and justice
Given the sensitivity of the issue, the high level of public interest, and the clear danger of legitimate public protests descending into mob rule, it is entirely right that the police should be given new guidance on releasing details of the ethnicity and nationality of a suspect in some, limited circumstances. The new interim guidance, issued by the National Police Chiefs' Council and the College of Policing, is, if anything, somewhat overdue – because it has been distressingly clear that surmise, conjecture, speculation, misinformation, propaganda, 'asking questions', and downright lies about serious crimes, can be weaponised by malign agents. Conspiracy theories have generated enormous public concern, and then disorder. Some calm analysis is required. Crime is crime, and criminals are criminals, and crime cannot be racialised. The release of information concerning a suspect's nationality, race, or immigration status (as has been suggested but, for the moment, resisted) cannot be used as an excuse for a riot. An offence is not more serious because it has been committed by, say, an asylum seeker, and an individual is not in some sense more guilty because of the colour of their skin. Except in cases involving a racial motive or incitement to hatred, such considerations ought to be irrelevant. Generally, they will continue to be. That has to be the default position. However, if a senior police team judges that the safety of the public is best served by the release of certain defaults, then a degree of discretion is justified. 'Guidance' is just that – a set of guidelines, not hard rules. The violent summer riots of 2024 were serious enough, but they could have been much worse had the truth about the Southport murders not emerged when it did, and had the untrue rumours about the suspect being a Muslim asylum-seeker who had come straight off a small boat not been dispelled – not that it should have made a difference in terms of criminal justice. As in all operational matters, the police should have an appropriate degree of discretion in the particular circumstances of any given situation they face, and equally, they should be free of political interference – and the demands of certain populist politicians and 'activists' to use heinous crimes and the suffering of victims for their own cynical purposes. These particular public figures don't care, in any case, whether people they don't like receive a fair trial, and are cheerfully contemptuous of the rule of law, particularly the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. But no democratic society should concede the universal principle of the right to a fair trial, uncontaminated by widespread misreporting of circumstances and motives such that a jury cannot do its job. The Home Office has not written these new guidelines – which is as it should be – but it has welcomed the interim proposals. The home secretary, Yvette Cooper, is complementing the move by asking the Law Commission to clarify how increased transparency and limited discretion for the police to release certain details could affect a free and fair trial. At the same time, the police have to be able to justify and defend their own actions in a world in which corrosive and baseless allegations of 'two-tier' policing, and 'cover-ups', are thrown around with such recklessness on social media and, sadly, by the so-called mainstream media as well. Like the guidance on what the police can reveal about suspects, the law on contempt of court also needs to be revisited. Since the relevant legislation was put on the statute book, the world has changed beyond recognition. Then, it was a matter of ensuring that a relatively small number of domestic press outlets and broadcasters behaved responsibly. For many years, because journalists are not on the whole bent on causing injustice and triggering retrials, the arrangements worked well. Times change. The last year or so, in particular, has proved how social media operates in an entirely different way. It is practically lawless. A very old adage springs to mind when one considers the speed of modern dissemination – a lie can be halfway around the world before the truth has got its boots on. This is an environment in which none of the tech giants take full responsibility for what appears on their platforms, or for the very real harm it can inflict. Vile racial slurs about non-existent crimes or suspects can originate far from the UK, and be amplified by bots and augmented by AI. There is a balance to be struck, essentially, between transparency and justice. That balance requires constant monitoring and periodic adjustment as technology moves forward and public expectations evolve. There will never be complete consensus, or success, often because the radical populists, both online and off, have a vested interest in fostering – indeed, creating – such unpleasant myths and conspiracies. But there is a sense here of a government and a police service being alert to the urgency of the challenge. In an often bleak social-media landscape, that is encouraging.
Daily Mail
6 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Donald Trump warns Putin there will be 'VERY severe consequences' if Russia does not stop the war in Ukraine
Donald Trump has warned Vladimir Putin 'there will be very severe consequences' if Russia does not agree to stop the war in Ukraine after their meeting on Friday. The US President took a tougher tone against the dictator yesterday saying he was yet to be convinced he would be able to persuade Putin to stop killing civilians. European leaders also said Mr Trump had agreed to make an immediate ceasefire at the start of negotiations a priority - something that will be painful for Moscow which is gaining territory by the day. In more encouraging news for Ukraine, the US President said tomorrow is only 'setting the table' for a second meeting where Volodymyr Zelensky will be present. Mr Trump cautioned that if he 'doesn't get the answers' he needs on Friday 'then we're not going to have a second meeting'. Asked if Russia will face consequences in that scenario, Mr Trump said: 'Yes, they will. There will be consequences.' Asked if that would be sanctions or tariffs, Trump said: 'I don't have to say. There will be very severe consequences.' But he hoped that there would be a 'quick second meeting' following the summit between Putin, Zelensky 'and myself if they'd like to have me there'. Trump said he hoped that there would be a 'quick second meeting' following the summit between Putin, Zelensky 'and myself if they'd like to have me there' In more encouraging news for Ukraine, the US President said tomorrow is only 'setting the table' for a second meeting where Volodymyr Zelensky will be present Describing the purpose of Alaska, Mr Trump said it was 'to find out where we are and what we are doing' before a 'more productive meeting' with Ukraine present. It is hoped that this second summit would take place in a neutral European country. Yesterday it emerged Mr Trump is planning to offer Putin access to rare earth minerals to incentivise him to end the war including opening up Alaska's natural resources to Moscow and lifting some sanctions. It may also include giving Russia access to the rare earth minerals in the Ukrainian territories under their occupation, the Telegraph reported. JD Vance yesterday said the US President had vowed that they would 'bring peace to Europe' in a speech at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire. He channelled the spirit of how America and Britain had brought peace by victory in World War Two after spending the week with Foreign Secretary David Lammy at Chevening House in Kent. Describing what he and Mr Lammy had discussed, the Vice President said: 'What we did is we worked on one of our most important shared security goals in Europe, which is the end of the war between Russia and Ukraine. 'The President of the United States came in six months ago, and I just talked to him right before I came on the stage, and he said very simply that we are going to make it our mission as an administration to bring peace to Europe once again.' It marked a successful day of European diplomacy after Mr Trump's deeply concerning press conference on Monday where he appeared to blame Mr Zelensky for the war and take a softer stance against Putin. EU leaders scrambled to hold a virtual summit with the US President and the Ukrainian leader yesterday which Mr Trump said he 'would rate a 10'. Afterwards Mr Zelensky, who dialled in from Berlin where he was meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, described the talks as 'constructive and good'. He said that 'Trump supported us today' and that leaders around the world are unified towards reaching 'peace in Ukraine'. Mr Zelensky also warned leaders that Putin 'is bluffing' that sanctions 'do not matter to him and are ineffective' as they are in fact 'hitting Russia's war economy hard'. Chancellor Merz reiterated to Mr Trump that they must apply more 'pressure' on Putin if there is no movement towards peace. He said the US president 'knows this position and agrees with it'. Chancellor Merz also stressed that a ceasefire must come at the beginning of negotiations - and that Mr Trump 'also wants to make this one of his priorities'. Sir Keir Starmer, who was also present on the call, said the 'coalition of the willing' is ready to deploy a 'reassurance force' when the moment arises. In more encouraging signs, Mr Vance joined a call for the coalition of the willing for the first time yesterday, dialling in from RAF Fairford before Mr Trump also joined. It marks a significant turn around since the Vice President disparagingly dismissed the peacekeeping proposal in March as '20,000 troops from some random country that hasn't fought a war in 30 or 40 years'. Sir Keir said yesterday: 'For three-and-a-bit years this conflict has been going on and we haven't got anywhere near the prospect of actually a viable solution, a viable way of bringing it to a ceasefire - and now we do have that chance because of the work that the president has put in.'
The Guardian
6 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Boosting productivity will be main priority of my autumn budget, Reeves says
Rachel Reeves has promised to use her autumn budget to prioritise fixing Britain's dismal record on productivity as she sought to downplay mounting tax speculation with a focus on economic growth. Setting out her priorities for the budget for the first time, the chancellor said tackling the efficiency of the economy through higher investment and a fresh assault on planning rules would form the backbone of her tax and spending plans. Writing exclusively for the Guardian, she said: 'If Labour's first year in power was about fixing the foundations, then the second year is about building a stronger economy for a renewed Britain.' However, Reeves pushed back against what she called 'speculation' over tax increases being explored by the Treasury to close a yawning gap in the public finances that is estimated to reach more than £40bn. 'The months and weeks before any budget are filled with people speculating about – or claiming to know – what tax and spend decisions I will take or what the Office for Budget Responsibility [OBR] will conclude. 'This budget is no different – I get that. I will set out the decisions I take in the responsible manner,' she said. The chancellor's comments come as the government braces for gloomy official figures that are expected to show the economy narrowly avoided flatlining in the second quarter. With Labour under mounting pressure over its management of the economy, City forecasters predict the update from the Office for National Statistics on Thursday morning will confirm that GDP rose by just 0.1% in the three months to June. The UK had outpaced all of its G7 peers in the first quarter with growth of 0.7%. However, experts have blamed tax increases announced by Reeves in her first budget, last October, and Donald Trump's trade war for a marked hit to activity. The chancellor, aiming to shrug off the anaemic performance, argued that the government was taking steps to break a 'cycle of low growth' in which Britain had become trapped under Conservative governments. Laying out one of the central themes of her budget, which could be held in November, Reeves said the government would aim to boost the productive capacity of the economy by allocating investment for infrastructure projects and ripping up planning rules. 'If renewal is our mission and productivity is our challenge, then investment and reform are our tools,' she said. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Earlier on Wednesday, the Guardian revealed that Keir Starmer was preparing to formally revive plans for the Northern Powerhouse Rail project, which would improve transport connections between the main cities of northern England. Reeves has also ordered Treasury officials to draw up proposals for slashing additional red tape in the UK's planning system to speed up large infrastructure projects. 'We are providing that investment and unblocking the barriers to it too,' she said. Successive chancellors have pushed to solve what economists refer to as a 'productivity puzzle' that has contributed to the UK's sluggish growth since the 2008 financial crisis. Productivity growth is considered one of the key determinants for raising living standards and wages over the long term. However, progress to drive up the measure of output per hour of work has stalled in recent years. The chancellor's renewed focus comes as the Treasury braces for a potentially devastating downgrade in productivity forecasts from the OBR, which could blow a £20bn hole in the chancellor's tax and spending plans. With the shortfall made worse by a weak growth outlook, higher debt interest payments, and a series of U-turns on welfare cuts, Reeves and the prime minister are preparing to roll the pitch for tax rises and reforms from September, before the autumn budget. The Guardian revealed on Tuesday that the Treasury was looking at ways to raise more money from inheritance tax to reduce the deficit. Labour MPs have been pushing the idea of a wealth tax, but changes to inheritance tax thresholds could be similarly controversial. Sarah Coles, the head of personal finance at Hargreaves Lansdown, said it was 'hardly surprising' that inheritance tax was 'back in the frame'. It is among a limited suite of taxes that can be changed, despite the government's commitment to not increase the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, employee national insurance or VAT. 'The system is so fiendishly complex that there are an enormous number of rules, and therefore tweaks, that the government could consider,' Coles added.
