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

The Straits TimesParty-aligned🔒Center2 hr. ago

Lev Panfilov, a Singapore-based TikToker and former actor, was acquitted of rape and sexual assault charges after the Court of Appeal found significant inconsistencies in the victim's testimony. Initially convicted in May 2025, Panfilov appealed, arguing the encounter was consensual and that the victim's claims contained contradictions. During the appeal hearing, the court examined several inconsistencies, including conflicting accounts of screams during the alleged assault, discrepancies regarding bloodstained underwear presented as evidence, and the victim's inability to recall visiting a clinic to obtain a medical memo. The judges concluded that these inconsistencies cast doubt on the prosecution's case, leading to his acquittal on all four charges.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced legal review of the case, focusing on the judicial process and the specific evidentiary issues that led to the acquittal. While the subject involves a criminal case, the framing remains neutral, emphasizing the court's findings rather than taking a partisan stance. No

Channel NewsAsia (CNA)State / PublicCenter3 hr. ago

A former actor from Singapore's comedy channel Wah! Banana, Lev Panfilov, was acquitted of rape and related charges by the Court of Appeal. The court found inconsistencies in the testimony of the alleged victim, leading to reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case. The appeal overturned the previous conviction, which had resulted in an 11-and-a-half year prison sentence and 12 strokes of the cane. Key issues included discrepancies between the victim's initial statement to a doctor and her courtroom testimony, as well as doubts about the reliability of the sole physical evidence, a pair of blood-stained underwear. The court noted that the underwear was retrieved from the victim's laundry basket during her menstrual period, raising questions about the origin of the blood.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a legal decision without overt ideological slant. It focuses on the judicial process and evidentiary challenges rather than taking a stance on the morality or guilt of the accused. While the outcome may be seen as favorable to the defendant, the reporting remains neutral in tone