Court of Appeal acquits ex-Wah!Banana actor of rape citing inconsistencies from alleged victim

A Singapore-based TikToker and former comedian, Lev Panfilov, was acquitted on September 2 of all charges related to the alleged rape and sexual assault of a woman he met on Tinder in January 2021. The Court of Appeal ruled that inconsistencies in the woman’s testimony created reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case, leading to the overturning of his earlier conviction. Panfilov, a 30-year-old Russian national and Singapore permanent resident, had previously been sentenced to 11½ years in prison and 12 strokes of the cane by the High Court in May 2025. He was found guilty of two counts of rape, one count of sexual assault by penetration, and one count of outrage of modesty. The incident reportedly occurred on January 12, 2021, in Panfilov’s condominium unit, where he invited the woman, an aspiring comedic scriptwriter, to help her work on a script. During the appeal hearing held on August 13, Panfilov’s legal team argued that the sexual encounter was consensual and that the woman’s claims of a forced and violent encounter contained multiple contradictions. The Court of Appeal, consisting of Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Justice Sushil Nair, and Justice Ang Cheng Hock, reviewed the case and determined that the inconsistencies in the woman’s statements cast sufficient doubt on the prosecution’s case. One key point of contention was whether the woman had screamed during the alleged attack. Six days after the incident, she told a doctor that she had screamed and that Panfilov had attempted to choke her and press a pillow over her head to silence her. However, in court, she claimed she had wanted to scream but did not manage to. Another critical inconsistency centered around a pair of blood-stained underwear presented as evidence by the prosecution. Expert witnesses from both sides agreed that the only injury observed on the woman could not explain the volume of blood found on the garment. The woman stated that the underwear had been in her laundry basket for six days following the incident and that she had to search through it to locate it on January 18, 2021. The court expressed doubts about the origin of the blood and whether the item was indeed the one worn on the night of the alleged assault. Further discrepancies arose regarding the woman’s memory of visiting a clinic four days after the incident to obtain a doctor’s memo detailing her injuries. She intended to share this information with Panfilov’s family. When the doctor refused to examine her before a formal police report was filed, she requested that the consultation records be erased. The court found it difficult to believe that she had no recollection of making such a request, especially since she cited the lack of evidence as a reason for delaying her police report. After the verdict, Panfilov, who had been in custody, smiled broadly. His girlfriend was present in the courtroom. Through his legal representatives from the law firm Eugene Thuraisingam, Panfilov expressed relief and stated that his faith in Singapore’s judicial system had been restored. He also remarked that the experience had made him more informed and urged young people to focus on reading rather than spending excessive time on social media. The appeal process highlighted the challenges faced in cases relying heavily on testimonial evidence without additional corroborating proof. Justice Sushil Nair emphasized that the inconsistencies in the woman’s testimony undermined the core aspects of her account, particularly in a situation where no other evidence was available. The court noted that the woman’s credibility was further questioned by her inability to recall specific actions she had taken immediately after the incident, which contradicted her detailed accounts in court. The ruling underscores the importance of thorough examination of testimonies in cases involving serious allegations, ensuring that justice is served based on reliable and consistent evidence. The case will likely continue to draw attention from legal experts and the public, highlighting the complexities involved in such trials.