11.5 years in prison. 12 strokes of the cane. No forensic link to the accused. No independent witness supporting the charge. No digital evidence. No medical evidence of injury. Just words...

Now read what actually happened.

 
The Night

On a January evening in 2021, a 24-year-old man and a 30-year-old woman met after matching on Tinder. They had dinner at Wine Connection. They went back to his shared apartment. She stayed for two hours. He used a condom. Two flatmates were home the entire time. Neither heard anything unusual.

When she was ready to leave, he called her a taxi. Seconds later, CCTV recorded her walking out of the building — relaxed, steady, scrolling through her phone. She spent 40 minutes in the taxi. The driver described her as relaxed and behaving normally. After arriving home, she sent friendly WhatsApp messages showing no fear or panic.

That was the night. Every piece of it was documented or witnessed.

None of it made it to trial in its original form.

• The flatmates were never called.
• The taxi driver was never called.
• The CCTV was never presented.
• The Tinder messages were never retrieved.
• The only digital record that survived — a WhatsApp fragment recovered by Lev himself three years later, not by the police — showed her writing first, initiating the meeting, and asking to meet sooner. The Prosecution reinterpreted it as evidence of "luring."

The evidence said one thing. She said another. Her words were found "unusually convincing". 

 
What Was Heard Instead

By the time of trial, the real-world evidence had been replaced with a different story:

• She said she "remained silent out of fear" — so the flatmates who heard nothing became irrelevant.
• She said she "does not like to show emotions" — so the CCTV and taxi driver became irrelevant.
• The WhatsApp messages were reinterpreted as written "out of fear."
• And the Tinder messages — never retrieved — were replaced with oral recollections presented as evidence.

Once every independent record had been removed or neutralised, a new claim appeared — for the first time, years after the event: "10 out of 10 pain." This claim became the central basis for classifying the offence as aggravated assault and seeking a harsher sentence:

• Yet no pain was visible on CCTV seconds after the alleged assault.
• No sound of distress was heard by two flatmates in the next room.
• No pain 10/10 was ever reported to the first doctor on Day 4.
• No injury, no trauma, no bleeding, no treatment required found by the forensic doctor on Day 6, when she made a police report.

This claim appeared only at trial, at the moment when no witness, no footage, and no digital record remained to challenge it.

The complainant was found "unusually convincing" and Lev was sentenced to 11.5 years in prison and 12 strokes of the cane.

Who Is the Complainant?

She was found "unusually convincing." Her professional background was deemed irrelevant.

Let us be clear: this is not about her profession. This is about context. When a conviction rests entirely on one person's oral testimony — with no forensic, medical, digital, or testimonial support of any kind — then every relevant factor must be considered. Including professional training in persuasion and performance.

At trial, the complainant was presented as a part-time teacher. This is who she actually is:

• She holds a Bachelor's Degree in Acting from a top US acting university.
• She has film credits listed on IMDB, including a lead role in a Chinese-language comedy.
• She maintains an active profile on Backstage — a professional casting platform used by directors and producers worldwide.
• She is a two-time finalist in the Miss World / Miss Universe Singapore pageant.
• She is the registered owner of two businesses in Singapore.
• She was 30 at the time of the events. Lev was 24.

When a conviction depends entirely on how convincing someone is on the stand — and nothing else — the question of whether that person has professional training in being convincing is not irrelevant. It is essential context. Ignoring it does not protect fairness. It undermines it.

Her explanation for being on Tinder — a dating app — was that she was looking for a scriptwriting consultant, on her mother's advice. Her IMDB page, her Backstage profile, her industry contacts, and her professional training suggest she had no shortage of legitimate channels to find one.

Moving forward, hundreds of constantly changing facts appeared only at trial — years later — and became the foundation of the aggravated assault charge.

In other words: the conviction rests on words. Words that contradict every contemporaneous record. Words that were absent from every earlier account. And words that defy common sense.

Apparently, in this case, common sense itself requires proof.

Any child understands: if you are in "10 out of 10 pain," you scream. If you are being assaulted for two hours with two people on the other side of the door, you call for help. If you have just experienced the worst pain of your life, you do not walk out seconds later — relaxed, steady, scrolling through your phone — showing no sign of distress on CCTV.

But none of this required proof. Her explanation — "I don't like to show emotions" — was enough. Even though the CCTV, where no one was watching her and she had no reason to perform, showed the opposite.

In this case, you can defy not only common sense, but biology itself. Because the only proof required was her words — the same words that were already found "unusually convincing."

If this sounds absurd — imagine she walked out normally of the building and claimed both her legs were broken - and it was accepted.. because you need an expert to prove "that's impossible"   This comparison is exactly as absurd as the situation itself.

Apparently, you can claim absurdity and still be found "unusually convincing" — as long as there is no one there to disprove it.

 
The Evidence That Should Have Ended This Case

The Prosecution's key exhibit was a pair of blood-stained underwear. Follow the logic:

Charges were filed in December 2021. At that point, the underwear had not been forensically tested. Not partially. Not at all. Charges were brought without verifying the key exhibit.
For 39 months, the Defence did not know the exhibit had never been tested. No one told them.
Only after persistent Defence requests was the underwear finally sent to HSA for analysis — 1,197 days after it was seized.

The results?

• no DNA of Lev Panfilov.
• No semen.
• No biological material linking him to the exhibit. Zero forensic connection to the accused.
• The Prosecution's own files contained an alternative medical explanation for the blood on the underwear.

Despite all of this — no link to the accused, and a documented alternative explanation in the Prosecution's own files — the underwear was accepted as proof of sexual assault.

Why? Because the complainant was "unusually convincing" and she said so. 

The Tinder messages were never retrieved. The investigating officer called them "not crucial." The original medical record — showing no injury — was withheld from the Defence for 39 months. The complainant's original police statement was never disclosed.

What an Innocent Man Does

During this ordeal, Lev's father was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Lev asked to return to Russia to say goodbye. The request was refused. His father died. Lev never saw him again.

Lev was finally allowed to visit his father's grave in Russia. He could have stayed. No legal mechanism could have forced him back.

He returned voluntarily — because he is innocent, because he believed the evidence would prove it, and because he trusted that the system would be fair.

 
Where Things Stand Now

Lev Panfilov maintains his innocence. The appeal is before the Court of Appeal.

The Prosecution has filed a cross-appeal seeking an even higher sentence.

Formal complaints have been filed with the AGC (Prosecution), the Singapore Police Internal Affairs Office, and the Singapore Medical Council regarding the conduct of the investigation and the handling of evidence. 

In five years — from the police report to the conviction — the only time Lev was asked for his version of events was at his arrest. After that — nothing. No follow-up interview. No clarification. No further questions. A 12-minute statement, and then silence — for five years — until a sentence of 11.5 years and 12 strokes of the cane.

Every piece of independent evidence in this case — forensic, medical, digital, and testimonial — was either not presented or contradicts the conviction. What remained were the complainant's words — unsupported by any record, contradicted by every contemporaneous document.

Imagine this happened to your son. Your brother. Your husband. Your friend.

Imagine he is 24 years old. He goes on a Tinder date. He goes home — and five years later he is in prison for 11.5 years, with 12 strokes of the cane, based on words alone. No DNA. No injury. No witness. No evidence. Just words — from a professionally trained actor — that changed with every retelling and contradicted every record.

Imagine he was never properly interviewed. Imagine the key evidence was never tested, never disclosed, or never presented. Imagine his side was never given the same weight.

Now imagine no one said anything.

We believe that no person should ever be convicted without clear evidence. We believe that one person's word against another's should not be accepted with closed eyes and handed entirely to one side. We believe that a fair process means both sides are heard, both sides are tested, and both sides are held to the same standard.

The appeal is now before the Court of Appeal. Despite everything described above, we believe that the appellate process exists precisely for cases like this — to correct what went wrong, to hear what was not heard, and to hold the process to the standard it demands of itself. We trust that Singapore's highest court will uphold the principles that make this country's legal system respected around the world.

If you believe that justice means evidence — not silence, not convenience, not blind faith in one voice — add your name.

This petition is published by Lev's family, friends and supporters.

For enquiries: JusticeForLev.sg@gmail.com