A lawyer was arrested at his office after sending a string of abusive messages to a woman who he had met on a dating app. 

Victor Kruchinkin, aged 32, was a solicitor in the London office of boutique firm Adams & Remers. He met his victim on the dating app Bumble and went on two dates with her on 26 and 27 December 2018. The following day she told Kruchinkin that she thought they may not have a future together. Kruchinkin's response in a string of toxic messages, reported by Court News UK, made certain that a third date was off the cards.

"I fucked you as punishment for wasting my time, for being fat and for having saggy tits, for having a loose pussy and for being overweight" Kruchinkin told her in one of the many red-flag messages, adding "you genuinely nearly made me throw up". Continuing the diatribe he called her a "gobby ethnic from Zone 8."

Kruchinkin also sent chilling messages to the woman, saying that she was "lucky to be alive" as "I decided to leave my machete at the hotel on this occasion". He told her to "make the most of the life you still have". He continued, "you invited a psycho into your bed, you had no idea", followed by some poor legal advice, "this is the very definition of recklessness."


Should have swiped left

The silver-tongued charmer told the woman that he couldn't be traced as he had created a fake profile online. However, his powers of avoiding detection were as impressive as his romantic dialogue. When she went to the police they soon discovered that Kruchinkin was a practicing solicitor. In January, police arrested Kruchinkin at Adams & Remers' office in Pall Mall. He was hauled before the magistrates court where he was sentenced to six weeks in prison (suspended for 12 months), along with 100 hours unpaid work and 25 days of rehabilitation activity. He was also slapped with a restraining order barring him from contacting the woman. 

Kruchinkin appealed. At the trial at Southwark crown court, his one-time date said in a statement that she was unable to leave her house for a few days "for fear" that Kruchinkin was "around the corner". She said "I was extremely worried he would try and take my life" and that she believed "that the crime was motivated by race because he used the N word". 

Kruchinkin's lawyer, Tahir Ali, told the court that although his client had made "a veiled threat" his motivation wasn't the woman’s ethnicity. Ali said that Kruchinkin had Asperger's syndrome and spoke his mind "without thinking through the consequences". He also said that his client didn't take kindly to being rebuffed in relationships, which stemmed from suffering from childhood rejection when his parents sent him to boarding school. 

Ali said that "the sad reality" was that his client would now be unemployable. He added that Kruchinkin faced proceedings at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal "that will commence once these proceedings conclude". However, a spokesman for the SRA confirmed to RollOnFriday that they were still "investigating and collating all relevant evidence before deciding on appropriate action". RollOnFriday understands that some defence lawyers jump the gun in this regard as part of a mitigation plea in an attempt to reduce the sentence for their client. 

Judge Sally Cahill said the court believed that Kruchinkin had shown remorse, had a "positive character" and that it was an "isolated incident". The court revoked the restraining order imposed by the magistrates court and reduced Kruchinkin's sentence to a 12 month community order, 100 hours unpaid work and 15 days of rehabilitation activity.

A spokeswoman for Adams & Remers confirmed to RollOnFriday that Kruchinkin worked in the firm's conveyancing team for 10 months, but was "immediately suspended following his arrest and resigned at the start of disciplinary action". She added "we undertake stringent background checks for all employees and had no cause for concern with this individual. We also have policies in place to ensure our staff are aware of the high standards of conduct expected at all times."

Tip Off ROF

Related News

This Week’s News


What the... 26 April 19 09:38

Revoked the restraining order???!??!?

So after making threats about machetes he was allowed to follow her home from the hearing without breaking any laws? Did the Judge at least give her a five minute head start?

What the... 26 April 19 09:59

If the restraining order wasn’t necessary (because he promised the Judge not to contact her?) then it’s no infringement on his liberty so why not keep it in place just in case. 

It’s only an infringement on his liberty if he intends to contact her, in which case it’s needed.

Anonymous 26 April 19 10:11

Restraining orders should only be made where essential, not 'just in case'. They should rarely be used to prevent 'contact'. In this case there is no need for a restraining order to be in place. 

Horrified 26 April 19 10:22

Defence said he “just spoke his mind without thinking through the consequences”.  That’s the terrifying bit - that’s what he was thinking.  Machetes, racism, abuse and death threats.  Because she wasn’t interested.  Bloody hell. 

Anonymous 26 April 19 14:40

Complete scumbag has been a ticking time-bomb for years.  Isn't the first incident.  Hopefully will find a hole to crawl under!

Anonymous 26 April 19 16:50

What the actual f***.  Revoked a restraining order???? Shouldn't that be the one part of the sentence left in place?  Or this some UK thing that requires a person to do more than stay away from and not contact a victim????

I take it his employer didn't let him near clients, with his inability to think before messaging?

Anonymous 26 April 19 20:40

In the UK restraining orders should only be granted where necessary and proportionate. The victim wasn't a client of his firm.

Anonymous 27 April 19 19:41

Because saying "an ethnic from zone 8" isn't enough evidence of it being racially motivated 

Concerned 28 April 19 05:14

If he was a working class fellow, would they have revoked the restraining order? This is yet another case of the halo effect, the fact of him being a lawyer somehow being a factor to justify the removal of the restraining order. I hope he is never allowed to work in the legal profession ever again. The fact that he was working for this firm for 10 months at the age of 32, may be a hint that he doesn't have a steady history of employment - due to his behaviour. 

Leon 28 April 19 09:41

A veiled threat??  Aspergers? Boarding school? Left his machete behind st the hotel? Gobby bitch from done 8....?? ..methinks we will read again of this sad excuse of a man and it won't mention the Nobel peace prize, a pig in a suit of clothes is still a pig!!...the only thing worse is the idiot judge that refused to jail him..but as they say,power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely!!! Country club anyone????