Life imprisonment for those accused of communicating with the terrorist Iranian Revolutionary Guard to commit terrorist hostile acts against the Kingdom.

The Chief of the Terrorist Crimes Prosecution in Bahrain stated that the High Criminal Court, in its session held today, issued its ruling in two separate cases, in which eleven defendants were accused of spying for the terrorist Iranian Revolutionary Guard Organization, with the intention of committing terrorist and hostile acts against the Kingdom of Bahrain and harming its interests. The court ruled life imprisonment for nine defendants, and three years’ imprisonment for the rest, in addition to confiscating the seized items.

The details of the first incident are due to the receipt of information confirmed by the investigations of the Bahraini General Department of Investigation and Criminal Evidence, indicating that the first accused – a fugitive and wanted by security forces – who works for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, recruited the second accused, who is inside the Kingdom of Bahrain, and assigned him to monitor and photograph vital and important installations inside Bahrain and collect information about them. The second accused, in implementation of the instructions of the first accused, rented hotel rooms and apartments, monitored one of the vital facilities, and passed the information he collected to the accused. First, investigations revealed that the third accused, who works in the field of money exchange, money transfers, and cryptocurrencies, and owns an office in the Republic of Iran, used Iranian and Bahraini bank accounts to conduct financial transfers, and was organizationally linked to the first accused, who was supplying him with sums of money in Iranian tomans to finance these assignments, which he in turn transferred to members of the organization in Bahraini dinars.

The role of the fourth accused and the fifth accused was to repeatedly visit the second accused while he was carrying out the tasks assigned to him by the first accused, with the intention of providing cover for him and removing suspicion from him, despite their knowledge of the nature of terrorist assignments related to monitoring and surveillance work.

As for the second case, it is due to the receipt of information confirmed by investigations from the Bahraini General Department of Investigation and Criminal Evidence regarding the first accused, who fled, recruiting the second accused, who is inside the Kingdom of Bahrain, and convincing him to work for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Organization to achieve his terrorist goals directed against the Kingdom.

The first defendant assigned the second defendant to monitor one of the vital installations and collect information about it. He was also assigned to search for local elements inside the Kingdom to recruit and harness them to implement the aforementioned terrorist plan. Pursuant to this, the second defendant was able to recruit four other defendants in the same incident, and they were assigned the tasks of monitoring, observing, and photographing vital installations, collecting information about them, and providing them to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard for the purpose of harming the country’s security and interests.

The Public Prosecution began investigating the two incidents immediately after receiving the reports. It interrogated the arrested defendants, appointed technical experts to examine the seized electronic devices, and listened to the statements of witnesses, including the investigators, who stated that their investigations resulted in their finding that the defendants had provided the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Organization with data and information that formed a fundamental basis in the hostile and terrorist actions that targeted a number of vital installations inside the Kingdom, which endangered the country’s security. Its stability is at risk.

In light of this, the Bahraini Public Prosecution ordered the defendants to be referred to the High Criminal Court, and the two cases were heard in several sessions during which all established legal guarantees were taken into account, including the presence of the defendants’ lawyers and enabling them to express their defense, until the court issued its advanced ruling in today’s session.