On July 29, the Federal Security Service (FSB) announced that Pavel Durov has been placed on an international wanted list in connection with allegations of aiding terrorism. According to the investigation, the Telegram administration allegedly failed to remove channels, chats, and bots that were purportedly used by Ukrainian intelligence services for coordinating attacks and recruitment.
ForkLog engaged Arkadiy Bukh, managing partner at Bukh Law Firm, to discuss the new case against the founder of the popular messaging app and the likely strategies the prosecution will use to establish Durov's guilt.
Where Does Telegram's Responsibility End?
This marks the second major criminal case involving the messaging app's founder. In France, legal proceedings began following Durov's arrest at Le Bourget Airport in August 2024. By November 2025, a French court lifted his travel restrictions, but the case remained open, leading to a fourth summons for questioning in July 2026.
Bukh pointed out that the mere existence of unremoved channels does not in itself prove Durov's personal involvement. To substantiate charges of complicity or conspiracy, it is insufficient to claim that the platform's leader should have been aware of illegal activities. The prosecution must establish a link between the service's operation and Durov's knowledge and decision not to intervene.
"The general doctrine — and believe me, it works the same in Moscow as it does in Brooklyn — is straightforward: if someone in a company is aware of criminal activity and this awareness does not lead to action, it creates grounds for charges of complicity or conspiracy," explained the lawyer.
Potential evidence could include internal communications, directives, failure to respond to law enforcement inquiries, or financial interests in maintaining access for violators to the platform.
The crux of the matter lies in transitioning from presumed awareness to intent and explicit assistance.
"So far, not much is publicly known about the Russian case: the FSB claims that Telegram's administration did not delete channels, chats, and bots allegedly used for coordinating attacks and recruitment. This is a classic formulation of platform responsibility. To convert this into a personal charge against Durov, the Russian side would need to prove not just the existence of such channels but that Durov was personally aware of specific, named threats and consciously chose not to act. Publicly, such evidence has yet to be presented," Bukh reminded.
According to the attorney, simply having illegal content on the platform does not answer three key questions:
- Did Durov know about specific violations?
- Did he receive requests to address them?
- Did he make a decision not to intervene?
How the Investigation Established Intent in the Bitzlato Case
Bukh referenced the criminal case against Anatoly Legkodymov, the founder of the Bitzlato cryptocurrency exchange, as a benchmark. The American investigation obtained internal communications where the businessman referred to users of the platform as "known fraudsters."
"In this case, he didn't 'might have known'; he literally knew and documented it. That phrase became one of the key pieces of evidence for intent. Ultimately, he pleaded guilty to charges of unlicensed money transmission, served one and a half years in custody, and forfeited claims to $23 million in assets," the attorney added.
This correspondence allowed the prosecution to shift from general corporate liability to the personal awareness of its leader. In the case of Telegram, the publicly available information in the Russian investigation currently lacks comparable data, Bukh emphasized.
The French Case Stalled
The investigation in France revolves around insufficient moderation on Telegram's part and its refusal to cooperate with authorities. Durov is not accused of personally posting prohibited content. The inquiry aims to determine whether the platform's consistent unwillingness to interact with law enforcement can be considered a form of complicity. Bukh assesses this as an attempt to shift responsibility from the infrastructure operator to its leader.
Durov's lawyers have argued that nearly two years into the investigation, no concrete evidence of his guilt has been presented. Until the platform's claims are linked to Durov's personal intent, the case against him remains vulnerable, according to Bukh.
The lawyer does not expect France to assist the Russian investigation regarding Durov. He views the emergence of new charges at this time more as a political gesture from the Kremlin than a coordinated legal initiative with Paris. Back in February 2026, Durov publicly stated that Russian authorities "come up with new excuses every day" to restrict citizens' access to Telegram.
The ongoing French investigation creates its own jurisdictional priority. The Russian case will need to develop separately, with its own evidentiary base, requests for searches, and attempts to execute them abroad.
International Wanted Status and Interpol
Being placed on an international wanted list does not guarantee that Durov will be extradited, Bukh highlighted.
"I can speak from the perspective of someone who has personally removed clients from Interpol's wanted lists, so I can say outright: it is realistic to declare a wanted status — yes, the Russian side has already done that. But realistically achieving extradition from Western Europe or the Emirates, where Durov claims to spend significant time, is virtually impossible. There is a mechanism that closely resembles political asylum: if a person is being pursued for political reasons, due to corruption revelations, or simply because they are inconvenient for the regime, this directly contradicts Article 3 of Interpol's Constitution, which prohibits the organization from intervening in political, military, religious, or racial matters," the lawyer explained.
Bukh cited the case of William Browder, founder of Hermitage Capital, as an example. According to him, Russia has attempted to publish a Red Notice against Browder at least eight times. However, Interpol's file control commission has rejected these requests, recognizing the pursuit as politically motivated.
In 2018, an old entry appeared in Spain's national database. Browder was briefly detained in Madrid but released within hours. Interpol stated that it did not authorize the request.
Such instances illustrate that even rejected notices can linger in national systems and lead to detentions.
Consequently, efforts to remove data from Interpol's database should begin before any potential arrest, Bukh advised. After an arrest, a person may remain in custody for months, even if a court subsequently denies extradition.
Where Durov Could Be Detained
Certain countries could theoretically detain Durov due to political loyalty to Moscow. Western European nations are likely to reject requests from Russia. An additional factor is Durov's French citizenship. He also holds passports from the UAE and Saint Kitts and Nevis.
While the risk of a brief detention at border crossings cannot be entirely eliminated, even a controversial request could lead to document checks, detention, and separate legal proceedings.
How Platforms Become Involved in Legal Cases
Using American practices, Bukh described a typical scenario for criminal cases against technology platforms:
"A cryptocurrency exchange, hosting provider, or communication platform offers a service. Criminals use this service. At some point, agents from the FBI or another federal agency contact users of the platform undercover and obtain confessions in communications or phone calls: 'yes, I am trading drugs', 'yes, this is stolen money'. The platform continues to serve these clients. Later, criminal prosecution occurs for conspiracy, money laundering, and related charges."
In such cases, not only the information that reaches the company owner matters. The investigation examines employee communications, internal processes, and the platform's response to identified risks. One or two messages can become the link between user activities and accusations against management.
Why Corporate Structure Doesn’t Always Provide Protection
The doctrine of "piercing the corporate veil" in criminal proceedings is applied more stringently than in civil disputes, Bukh noted. The corporate structure becomes a weak defense if the investigation proves the owner's awareness, control over processes, and ability to halt violations.
In civil cases, the corporate facade can limit financial liability. However, in criminal prosecutions, it rarely protects management if the prosecution possesses evidence of personal involvement. Bukh again referenced the Bitzlato case:
"The U.S. Department of Justice explicitly stated that the exchange was a primary counterparty to the dark web platform Hydra and marketed itself to clients as a place without questions — 'no selfies or passports required'. Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco stated literally: 'It doesn't matter if you violate our laws from China, Europe, or a tropical island — you will answer in an American court.' This firmly and transparently conveys the agency's logic."
Most owners of large platforms do not personally know each user. This does not preclude the investigation from attempting to impute knowledge through employees, internal communications, and a lack of response to obvious signals. Words like "cartel", "drugs", or "stolen money" in internal messages can become crucial, even if the author of the text is not directly connected to management.
Compliance as Part of Criminal Defense
It is nearly impossible to completely shut access to all potential violators on a large platform. Regulators acknowledge this, noted the attorney. The risk arises when a company cannot demonstrate that it identified violations, responded to requests, and reviewed its dealings with suspicious clients. AI simplifies monitoring but requires investments in infrastructure and specialists. Not all companies are willing to allocate the necessary resources for compliance.
For the investigation, deficiencies in internal controls can serve as an argument that management consciously ignored risks. Conversely, for the defense, those same processes can work in the opposite direction. Documented audits, responses to inquiries, and decisions to restrict access help prove a lack of intent.
The Direction of Platform Regulation
Criminal cases against Durov fall within a broader trend of increasing control over internet platforms.
Five to ten years ago, censorship and enforcement methods were more commonly associated with Eastern European countries, China, and North Korea. Now, similar tools are being actively utilized by Western jurisdictions as well. According to Bukh, no legal system currently has a clear boundary between platform responsibility and personal criminal responsibility of its creator.
On one side lies the "safe harbor" model. A platform is not liable for user content if it complies with lawful requests for removal and cooperates with authorities. On the other side is personal responsibility of the founder for systemic failures in moderating the service and engaging with law enforcement.
The French case against Durov occupies a space between these models. The investigation seeks to prove that Telegram's insufficient collaboration was not merely a characteristic of the platform's operation but a form of assistance to violations.
This construct could affect not just messengers but also cryptocurrency exchanges, hosting services, payment platforms, and other infrastructure companies.
The Cost of Legal Uncertainty
Bukh views Durov's case as part of a global reevaluation of the responsibilities of technology platforms:
"I would summarize it this way: what is happening with Durov is not some unique story of an eccentric billionaire but a litmus test for where international regulation of technology platforms is headed. While legislators and courts on both sides of the Atlantic debate where platform infrastructure responsibility ends and personal criminal responsibility of its creator begins, specific individuals — from messaging app founders to cryptocurrency exchange owners — are paying for this ambiguity with their freedom, bonds in millions of euros, and years under travel restrictions."
The practical takeaway for the industry, the lawyer articulates plainly: investment in compliance and internal controls must occur before a criminal case arises. A company should understand what information employees receive, how they respond, and what remains in internal communications. Just a few phrases can transform a dispute over platform operations into an accusation against its founder.
Interviewed by Anatoly Kaplan