Former Wah!Banana actor Lev Panfilov has been acquitted of all four sexual-offence charges after successfully appealing against his convictions.
The Court of Appeal overturned the 30-year-old Russian national’s convictions on Wednesday, 2 September 2026.
Panfilov, a Singapore permanent resident, had been convicted of two counts of rape, one count of sexual assault by penetration and one count of outrage of modesty.
He was sentenced in May 2025 to 11 years and six months’ jail and 12 strokes of the cane. The caning had not been carried out.
The case arose from a sexual encounter with a woman he met on Tinder at his condominium unit on 12 January 2021. Panfilov did not deny that the sexual acts took place, but maintained that they were consensual.
Court Finds Reasonable Doubt in Prosecution’s Case
Delivering the Court of Appeal’s decision, Justice Sushil Nair said several inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, when considered together, created reasonable doubt.
The three-judge court comprised Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Justice Nair and Justice Ang Cheng Hock.
The court concluded that the complainant’s evidence did not meet the “unusually convincing” standard required in this case, where her account was not supported by sufficient corroborative evidence.
This standard does not lower or replace the prosecution’s burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court’s published grounds had described it as a safeguard used when a complainant’s testimony is relied upon without other evidence capable of removing reasonable doubt.
Judges Point to Several Inconsistencies
One issue concerned whether the woman had screamed during the alleged assault.
She had told a doctor that she screamed, according to notes made during the consultation. In court, however, she testified that she had wanted to scream but did not actually do so.
The Court of Appeal accepted the doctor’s contemporaneous record and regarded the difference as material.
The judges also had doubts surrounding a pair of blood-stained underwear presented as physical evidence.
The underwear was retrieved from the woman’s laundry basket six days after the encounter, during which time she had begun menstruating. The court said there was no evidence establishing that the blood was not menstrual.
Medical evidence also did not establish an injury that could account for the amount of blood on the underwear.
The court therefore found unresolved questions both about whether the underwear was the same pair worn during the encounter and about where the blood had come from.
Another concern involved a clinic visit four days after the alleged incident.
A doctor testified that the woman had asked for a medical memo recording her injuries and their possible cause. The woman later said she could not remember making that request.
The Court of Appeal found her inability to recall the episode significant when assessing her credibility.
High Court Had Previously Convicted Panfilov
Justice Pang Khang Chau had convicted Panfilov of the four charges in March 2025, finding at the time that the complainant’s testimony met the unusually convincing standard.
He was sentenced on 19 May 2025.
Panfilov appealed, and his lawyers argued before the Court of Appeal on 13 August 2026 that there were material problems with the complainant’s evidence.
The appellate court reserved its decision before delivering its verdict on 2 September.
The Court of Appeal also granted Panfilov a discharge amounting to an acquittal on a separate outstanding obstruction of justice charge. The prosecution’s appeal seeking heavier sentences for the sexual offences was dismissed following his acquittal.
