In Berlin, Pavel Durov speaks with Alexia Tsotsis on the TechCrunch Disrupt Europe stage on October 27, 2013. Their conversation comes several years before the Telegram founder’s clashes with governments. Credit: TechCrunch, CC BY 2.0.
Pavel Durov, founder of Telegram, is now being pursued by Russia. Moscow announced on Wednesday, July 29, 2026, that it had placed him on an international wanted list for “supporting terrorist activities.” The country accuses him of failing to remove a dating bot. According to its services, Ukraine used it to recruit young Russians. The scope of this process outside Russia, however, remains unknown.
A Russian Accusation Focused On Telegram Moderation
The Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) announced on July 29 that it had brought charges against Pavel Durov. The investigation is based on Article 205.1 of the Russian Criminal Code, devoted to support for terrorist activities. In the FSB statement relayed by TASS, the authorities say they intend to place the Telegram chief on an international wanted list.
The wording is heavy, but it does not mean Pavel Durov personally organized an attack. The complaint laid out by the FSB concerns platform management. Telegram allegedly failed to remove channels, groups, and bots accused of being used to prepare violent acts. Russian services also mention sabotage and scams. The messaging app’s founder is therefore being prosecuted because of the criminal liability Moscow assigns him for keeping these services online.
At this stage, no complete public court document makes it possible to examine the evidence targeting Pavel Durov personally. The date of any possible decision and the reasoning linking moderation to criminal complicity also remain unknown. The FSB’s announcement establishes the existence of a Russian accusation. It does not prove either the reality of the offenses cited or the guilt of the executive, who is presumed innocent.
An International Notice That Is Not A Global Arrest Warrant
The most uncertain point concerns the word “international.” TASS’s English version refers sometimes to a procedure launched, sometimes to an international warrant, without publishing any court decision. Reuters reports that the FSB did not specify the mechanism it had in mind. The criminal police agency Interpol had not responded to Reuters’ request for comment in the hours following the announcement.
A search ordered by a state, a domestic arrest warrant, and an Interpol notice are three different tools. An Interpol Red Notice asks police in member countries to locate a person. Their law may then allow a provisional arrest. Interpol reminds readers that it is not itself an international arrest warrant. Each state retains the decision whether to give a police or judicial follow-up to the alert.
Russia could also use a “diffusion,” a request sent directly to certain countries through the Interpol network, or bilateral channels. Nothing yet allows us to say that such a step has succeeded. In the absence of institutional confirmation, talking about an imminent arrest of Pavel Durov outside Russia would therefore be premature.
The entrepreneur’s current whereabouts add another unknown. Reuters reported on July 29 that he had said he was in Georgia the previous week. His location was no longer established, however. Some wire reports describe him as usually living in Dubai. His presence in France at the time of the Russian announcement is not confirmed.
The Daivinchik/Leo Dating Bot At The Center Of The Case
The case described by Russian services rests in part on “Daivinchik/Leo,” also called “Leo Match Bot.” This dating bot accessible through Telegram connects users without being a service created by the platform itself. According to the FSB, Ukrainian services used it to approach young Russians by posing as young women.
The scenario presented by Moscow follows several steps. After building trust, the alleged recruiters reportedly obtained personal information. They also allegedly steered their contacts toward fraudulent links. Other people then allegedly posed as Russian agents. They reportedly pressured the targeted young people into acting. This alleged method mixes emotional manipulation, phishing, and blackmail.
The FSB says 46 Russians aged 12 to 22 have been arrested since July 2025. These arrests allegedly took place in 17 regions after such recruitment efforts. According to the authorities, the acts attributed to them range from attacks on police officers to infrastructure fires. Transportation, energy, communications, and finance sectors would be affected. Criminal cases would have been opened for terrorism, sabotage, property destruction, and involving minors.
TASS said it was able to access the bot on July 29 and said it had more than 13.6 million users. The service therefore appeared to remain available at the time of the announcement. This does not prove either the identity of its operators or its use by Ukrainian services. Nor does it establish the chain of responsibility alleged by the FSB. A bot hosted on Telegram’s popularity is not enough to show that the executive knew every use of the service.
Accusations That Are Impossible To Verify Independently
The tally of 46 arrests, the recruitment process, and the involvement attributed to Ukrainian services all come for now from Russian authorities. Russia’s Investigative Committee has repeated these accusations. The decisions concerning those arrested and the digital evidence seized remain inaccessible, however. The same is true of the testimony on which the case rests.
The Ukrainian authorities had not publicly reacted in the hours after the announcement. Their immediate silence cannot be read as either confirmation or denial. In this wartime context, both sides carry out intelligence operations and accuse each other of sabotage. Any statement of this kind therefore requires evidence separate from security services’ communications.
The age of the people cited also calls for special caution. Some of them may be minors. Their identities, interrogation conditions, and the exact nature of the charges remain unknown. Presenting them as confirmed perpetrators of terrorist acts would amount to repeating a Russian classification without independent judicial review.
The decisive missing link is also absent from the accusation against Pavel Durov. The authorities have not shown what specific takedown requests were sent to Telegram regarding the bot. Their date and any response remain unknown. The FSB has also not explained how a refusal would prove a personal intent to facilitate crimes. This distinction separates a moderation failure, an executive’s responsibility, and intentional participation in an offense.
A Provocative Response, But No Defense On The Merits
A few hours after the announcement, Telegram’s official account on X posted a photo without comment. Pavel Durov is shown giving the middle finger. The image was widely understood as a response to Moscow. It sheds no light, however, on the FSB’s takedown requests or on how the bot works. It also does not specify the legal status of the international search.
Pavel Durov had already adopted a defiant tone in response to the Russian investigation. In April 2026, he said a summons addressed to “suspect P. V. Durov” had been delivered to an address where he lived 20 years earlier. He then described the prosecutions as an attack on freedom of expression and the secrecy of correspondence guaranteed by the Russian Constitution.
Telegram more broadly rejects accusations that it is passive in the face of criminal uses. The company says it moderates illegal content and cooperates with judicial requests when they are properly submitted. That position will still need to be measured against the specific requests invoked by Russia. Publishing a provocative image does not replace a documented response to those exchanges.
Telegram, Between Everyday Tool And Sovereignty Issue
The case comes after several months of tougher measures against Telegram in Russia. Authorities have slowed or restricted access to the service, officially because of extremist content that was not removed. At the same time, Russian institutions, including the Kremlin and the Defense Ministry, continue to post there every day. This coexistence illustrates the messaging app’s unusual place: a private service challenged by the state, but infrastructure that has become hard to replace.
Telegram combines private conversations with large public channels. This structure explains its success in Russia, where politicians, media outlets, activists, soldiers, and families use it to spread or receive information. Since the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the platform has also been used by actors on both sides. It is at once a propaganda space, a documentation tool, a means of coordination, and a relay for alerts.
Moscow is also encouraging the adoption of MAX, a state-backed messaging app. Telegram accuses the authorities of manufacturing pretexts to push users toward a service under political control. In February, the Russian government claimed that foreign services could read soldiers’ messages. The company responded that no flaw in its encryption had been established.
The conflict between Pavel Durov and the Russian state is longstanding. After founding VKontakte, he sold his remaining shares in 2014 amid political pressure. He then developed Telegram outside Russia. Authorities had already tried to block the messaging app between 2018 and 2020, without managing to prevent its use for long. The terrorism accusation now shifts this technological standoff into criminal territory.
A Separate French Procedure
Pavel Durov is also under formal investigation in France since August 2024, after his arrest at Le Bourget airport. French justice is investigating in particular how Telegram responded to investigators’ requests. It is also examining the platform’s use for offenses linked to organized crime. This procedure concerns neither the Daivinchik/Leo bot nor the sabotage allegations made by Russia.
On July 8, 2026, he was questioned for more than six hours in Paris. It was his fourth interrogation since he was placed under formal investigation. His lawyers then challenged the basis of the French accusations. Telegram, for its part, said its improved cooperation stemmed from better-formulated judicial requests.
The two cases raise a common question: how far can the responsibility of a platform and its chief executive go? Yet they rely on different facts, authorities, and legal classifications. Confusing them would suggest a single international criminal case, when in fact they are separate national proceedings.
The French situation also does not make it possible to infer the response that would be given to a Russian request. A provisional arrest, extradition, or refusal would first depend on an identifiable legal act. The country where Pavel Durov is located, the applicable law, and the review by its courts would also matter. Moscow’s political and police announcement is not enough to settle those steps.
What The Announcement Actually Changes
The confirmed fact on July 29 is the public opening of a new phase in the Russian case. Pavel Durov is now formally accused by the FSB. The authorities say he is wanted internationally. This decision increases the judicial and diplomatic risk when he travels, even if its concrete effect outside Russia remains uncertain.
Several pieces are still needed to measure the real reach of the procedure. The Russian court decision, the exact wording of the charges, and proof of a request sent abroad would be required. Exchanges between Telegram and the authorities about the bot also matter. A response from the company, Pavel Durov’s lawyers, and the Ukrainian authorities would finally make it possible to confront the FSB’s account.
The case thus goes beyond the image posted on X. It concentrates the struggle against the criminal use of platforms and over control of Russia’s digital space. It also fits into the information war with Ukraine. For now, Russia has made its accusation public. It has not yet shown that its “international wanted notice” produces the effects of an enforceable warrant beyond its borders.