Former Wah!Banana actor, 30, cleared of rape after appeal court acquits him of all charges

Former Wah!Banana actor Lev Panfilov has been cleared of raping and sexually assaulting a woman he met on Tinder.

This comes after he had appealed against his conviction for raping, sexually assaulting and molesting a woman in his flat on Jan. 12, 2021.

The 30-year-old Russian national was previously sentenced to 11 years and six months in jail, as well as 12 strokes of the cane on May 19, 2025.

During the initial trial, Panfilov did not deny that he had sex with the woman, but claimed that it was consensual.

Acquitted

According to CNA, the Court of Appeal overturned the convictions against Panfilov on four charges comprising rape, sexual assault and molestation on Sep. 2.

Panfilov reportedly broke into a smile upon hearing the verdict.

The appeal case was heard before a panel of three judges.

Speaking on behalf of the three, Justice Sushil Nair said they found inconsistencies in the alleged victim's testimony, giving rise to a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case.

They also found that the woman is not an "unusually convincing witness", reported CNA.

In "he said, she said" cases, an “unusually convincing” standard sets the threshold for a witness’ testimony to be preferred over the evidence put forth by an accused person, according to Singapore Legal Advice.

The trial judge had previously convicted Panfilov after finding the woman an "unusually convincing" witness, while finding Panfilov not to be a "credible witness".

Inconsistencies

One of the inconsistencies in the woman's testimony was whether she had screamed during the alleged assault.

The woman had told a doctor that she had done so, but later said in court that she did not scream but had attempted to, reported CNA.

Additionally, the judges noted that the only physical evidence offered by the prosecution was a pair of blood-stained underwear.

The underwear was taken out of her laundry basket six days after the incident, during which she had her period, and there was no evidence that the blood was not menstrual, reported CNA.

The underwear also did not match Panfilov's description of the underwear worn by the woman that night.

Furthermore, there were no wounds found on the woman during examination that would have caused the amount of blood found on it.

Falls short of unusually convincing standard

In a Facebook post by Panfilov's appeal lawyer, Eugene Thuraisingam, following the appeal hearing, the defence noted that the woman had initially told police there was no evidence of rape, before later producing a pair of bloodied underwear retrieved from a laundry hamper.

According to CNA, the appeal judges found the woman's hesitation to make a police report "puzzling", despite apparently being aware of the bloodied underwear.

Justice Nair reportedly said the complainant’s evidence did not meet the "unusually convincing standard" required and was insufficient to overcome the absence of corroborative evidence.

Gap in time when he left to go bathroom

The judge also noted that there was a gap in time when Panfilov left the woman on the bed to go to the bathroom.

The woman had testified that she attempted to leave the room a couple of times before she was purportedly pushed onto the bed.

While Justice Nair acknowledged that victims of sexual assault can react to an assault in different ways, he said that the woman remaining on the bed, fully dressed, rather than leaving, was inconsistent with her evidence when considered alongside the rest of her testimony.

The gap in time was more consistent with a consensual encounter than a violent, non-consensual one, Justice Nair was cited by CNA as saying.

Challenging appeal

In response to Mothership's queries, Panfilov's defence team, comprising Johannes Hadi, Eugene Thuraisingam, and Seraphine Loh, said the appeal was an "extremely challenging" one.

“We thoroughly and meticulously combed through the record of proceedings of the court below. That was the level of detail we had to look at and present to the court in support of our argument that there were material inconsistencies in the complainant’s version of events," they said.

The team said they are "delighted" that the Court of Appeal accepted their argument and acquitted Panfilov.

"It has been a privilege to bring our advocacy to bear in a case of this magnitude, and we are proud to have played our part in the administration of justice in Singapore,” they said.