The Fitburg trial opened in Helsinki on Tuesday, with prosecutors seeking prison sentences of at least two years and six months for the ship’s captain and boatswain over damage to two undersea telecommunications cables in the Gulf of Finland on 31 December 2025.
Russian captain Andrei Maksimenko and the Azerbaijani boatswain are accused of aggravated sabotage and aggravated interference with telecommunications. Both men deny the charges and argue that Finland does not have jurisdiction to prosecute the case.
Prosecutors allege that the cargo ship dragged an anchor chain and part of an anchor along the seabed for roughly 130 kilometres over several hours. During that journey, the vessel is alleged to have damaged telecommunications cables operated by Elisa and Arelion Finland and crossed eight other underwater connections, including infrastructure linked to electricity and gas supplies.
The prosecution says the incident posed a serious risk to communications and energy infrastructure in Finland and elsewhere in the Baltic region. According to prosecutors, further damage could have resulted in electricity shortages and left Finland with insufficient gas supplies within days.
The defence disputes that account and rejects the suggestion that either crew member deliberately caused the damage or acted negligently.
Maksimenko has told investigators that he believed the anchor remained secured during the voyage. His lawyer, Olli Etelämäki, said the captain had ordered additional securing wires to be installed before the ship departed and had no reason to suspect that the anchor was dragging along the seabed.
The boatswain also denies responsibility. His lawyer, Markku Salonen, argued that his client did not have the authority to raise or lower an anchor without an order from the captain. The crew believed the anchor was secured when the vessel left port, the defence maintains.
Fitburg had departed from St Petersburg and was sailing towards Israel when the cable faults were detected.
Finnish authorities were first alerted to a fault affecting an Elisa cable at 04:53 on New Year’s Eve. A second fault involving an Arelion cable was reported shortly afterwards. The Border Guard then contacted Fitburg and other vessels operating in the area.
According to police pre-trial material released on Tuesday, the crew initially told the Border Guard that both anchors were secured. That account came under scrutiny after Finnish authorities monitoring the ship from a helicopter reported seeing an anchor chain or cable in the water and instructed the crew to inspect the equipment again.
The Border Guard subsequently ordered Fitburg to raise the anchor and halt its voyage. Police special forces and Border Guard readiness units boarded the vessel by helicopter and took control of the ship.
The investigation has not produced an admission from any crew member that the anchor was deliberately lowered. Prosecutors nevertheless argue that the anchor could only have entered the water through human action and that investigators found no mechanical failure capable of explaining its release.
Investigators also identified a drag mark on the seabed along the route taken by Fitburg. Prosecutors say the mark corresponded with the width and profile of the vessel’s anchor structure, supporting their case that the anchor had been dragged across the seabed.
The defence has pointed to the conditions on board and at sea, including freezing temperatures. The anchor equipment was covered with mud and ice, according to the defence. Maksimenko also told police that the deck was so slippery when Finnish authorities boarded the vessel that officers had to move on all fours in some areas.
A separate and potentially important issue in the trial concerns whether Finland has the legal authority to prosecute the case at all. Defence lawyers argue that much of the alleged damage took place in Estonia’s exclusive economic zone and that Fitburg is registered in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
The prosecution takes a different view. It argues that Finland has jurisdiction because part of the cable damage occurred in Finnish territorial waters and because the consequences of the incident affected Finland.
The Helsinki District Court said at the beginning of Tuesday’s hearing that it considers itself competent to hear the case, allowing the trial to proceed.
The jurisdiction question echoes an earlier Finnish case involving the tanker Eagle S, which was also accused of damaging undersea infrastructure in the Baltic Sea. In August, the Helsinki Court of Appeal ruled that Finland had jurisdiction in that case and returned it to the district court after the lower court had dismissed the case in October 2025 on jurisdictional grounds.
The Fitburg proceedings are scheduled to last six hearing days, with two additional days reserved if required. The court will now have to assess the prosecution’s account of how the anchor entered the water, the circumstances surrounding the cable damage and whether the evidence is sufficient to establish criminal responsibility beyond the disputed jurisdictional questions.
