The court heard that the 19-year-old alerted UK authorities after seeing a female friend being attacked in London on January 18 last year. The young man contacted police immediately, reporting that the woman was in danger and urgently needed help.
During the emergency call, he explained that the assault had occurred moments earlier and that he was struggling to find the correct way to reach emergency services due to the urgency of the situation. He told operators that he had met the victim online through social media.
The defendant, identified as Matvei Rumiantsev, was later arrested and charged in connection with the attack. Following trial proceedings, the court found him guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
The case highlighted how swift action and international communication helped authorities respond to a serious act of violence, despite the witness being thousands of miles away at the time of the incident.
Prosecutors told the court that the defendant acted out of jealousy, believing the victim’s friendship with a high-profile American figure was a source of tension and anger.
The 22-year-old man, who was living in the Canary Wharf area of east London at the time, was found guilty on Wednesday of assault causing actual bodily harm committed between January 17 and 18, as well as attempting to interfere with the course of justice.
However, the court acquitted him of separate allegations of rape and intentional strangulation linked to the same period, as well as another count of rape and assault said to have occurred in November 2024.
During the proceedings, the court heard details of an emergency call placed from the United States after the witness observed the attack during a brief video call. In the transcript, he explained that a female acquaintance had contacted him and appeared to be under assault, prompting him to urgently seek help despite being overseas.
In a later written response to investigators, the witness described the incident as extremely short but alarming. He said he had not expected the call to be answered due to the time difference, but was shocked when it connected.
According to his account, the call was initially picked up by a shirtless man with dark hair, whom he saw only briefly. Moments later, the camera view shifted to the woman, who appeared distressed and was being struck while crying and speaking in Russian. The call then abruptly ended.
The entire exchange, he said, lasted only a few seconds, but was enough to prompt immediate concern and a call to emergency services.
The prosecution told the court that the defendant was motivated by jealousy over the woman’s friendship with a well-known American figure, suggesting that her association with someone of public prominence may have fueled his anger.
Jurors were urged to pay close attention to the emergency call made during the incident, with prosecutors highlighting the caller’s distressed and urgent tone as evidence of genuine concern.
The court heard that the defendant and the woman had been drinking together on the night of January 17, 2025, continuing into the early hours of the following day. Prosecutors said the situation escalated into violence, during which the woman was repeatedly struck, including blows to her face.
The defendant, who was said to have a background in martial arts, denied carrying out the assault.
Evidence presented to the jury included details of a video call received during the incident. The court was told that the defendant answered the call and briefly directed the camera toward the woman, who was seen on the floor crying and screaming.
Jurors were also informed that the defendant had become aware of the woman’s friendship with the American contact several months earlier, in October 2024, a development the prosecution argued played a role in the events that followed.
During cross-examination on Friday, the defendant was questioned about whether jealousy played a role in the incident, particularly regarding the woman’s interactions with other men.
He told the court that his frustration was not about general jealousy but stemmed from what he described as her misleading behaviour toward a young American acquaintance. He claimed this conduct was unfair and inappropriate.
The presiding judge intervened, reminding the defendant that the central issue before the court was whether he had assaulted the woman.
In response, the defendant said he was being unfairly characterised as someone prone to violent jealousy. He insisted that his concerns related to what he viewed as the woman’s actions rather than uncontrolled anger, though he admitted that jealousy was a factor “to some extent.”
The additional charge of attempting to obstruct justice relates to a letter the defendant allegedly sent from prison following the January 18 incident, in which he urged the woman to retract her allegations.
