out was at the center of a court hearing on Tuesday, where prosecutors said a Russian speaker recruited and offered money to Ukrainian men to carry out arson attacks on properties connected to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. The alleged incidents took place over three nights in May 2025 in north London, with three fires tied to a car and two properties linked to the prime minister. Three defendants, all living in London, deny the charges.
Three fires, one target pattern
Prosecutor Duncan Atkinson KC told jurors that the case concerns “a series of three fires that were deliberately set in a residential area of North London over three nights in May last year. ” He said the incidents were not random, adding that “three fires in the same area within five days would be pretty unusual” and that fires involving property linked to the same person were “beyond a coincidence. ”
Lavrynovych, 22, and Petro Pochynok, 35, both Ukrainian nationals, along with Stanislav Carpiuc, 27, a Ukrainian-born Romanian national, are accused of targeting two properties and a car linked to Sir Keir Starmer. All three are charged with conspiring together, and “with others, ” to damage property by fire between 1 April and 13 May 2025. They deny all the charges.
Lavrynovych also faces charges of damaging property by fire with intent to endanger life on 11 and 12 May 2025 at two properties in north London connected to Sir Keir. He has alternate counts of damaging property by fire being reckless as to whether life is endangered.
Out and the alleged payment trail
Atkinson said analysis of messages from phones recovered from, and connected with, the defendants showed communication between them before and during the relevant period. He said Lavrynovych was offered payment to set the fires by a contact using the name or pseudonym “El Money” on the Telegram messaging app.
The prosecutor said Carpiuc also communicated with “El Money, ” and that the contact communicated in Russian, unlike the Ukrainian otherwise used by the defendants. He told jurors it is not for them to decide who “El Money” is or what reason that person may have had to coordinate the alleged actions. The central question for the jury, he said, is whether the three defendants carried out the conduct alleged against them. out remains the key thread in the prosecution’s account, because the state says the fires were planned and directed with payment promised for participation.
What the court heard about the fires
On 8 May 2025, a car previously owned by the prime minister was found on fire on a street he previously lived on in Kentish Town, north London. Three days later, a fire was discovered at flats linked to Sir Keir in nearby Islington. On 12 May 2025, a fire was discovered at the entrance to Sir Keir’s Kentish Town home, which was being rented out.
Atkinson said one house was managed by a company of which the prime minister had once been director and shareholder, while another still belonged to him and was occupied by his sister-in-law. He added that the evidence showed there was “no coincidence” and that the vehicle and properties were targeted.
Immediate reaction in court
The case is being heard before jurors who have been told they do not need to decide what motivated the defendants. Atkinson said it does not matter whether they knew the property was connected to the prime minister or whether that formed part of their motive, because the prosecution does not allege a political or ideological explanation as the basis of the charges.
The defendants have denied the allegations, and the court has heard no finding beyond the prosecution case and the pleas entered. The hearing places out at the center of a sharply focused dispute over planning, payment, and intent.
What comes next
The proceedings now move toward the jury’s assessment of the evidence, including the phone material, the alleged communications with “El Money, ” and the series of fires linked to Sir Keir Starmer’s properties and a car. For now, the case remains tightly framed around whether the alleged arson attacks were coordinated, paid for, and carried out as described in court, with out still central to the prosecution narrative.
