Introduction
This article has attracted attention due to its sensational claims about Telegram founder Pavel Durov’s inheritance plan—specifically, that he intends to distribute his $13.9 billion fortune equally among over 100 children he claims to have fathered. Additionally, readers have raised questions about how such an inheritance would be managed legally, especially given the cross-border issues involved and Durov’s ongoing legal challenges. This fact-check addresses the validity of these statements and clarifies the legal and factual context behind them.
Historical Context
Pavel Durov is best known as the founder of Telegram, a privacy-focused messaging app that has grown rapidly since its 2013 launch and now claims over a billion monthly users. Prior to that, Durov created VKontakte, Russia’s largest social networking platform, from which he was ousted in 2014 after refusing to cooperate with government censorship. Since then, he has positioned himself as a free-speech advocate, operating Telegram from Dubai and taking public stances against state surveillance and regulatory overreach. Telegram’s resistance to moderation and law enforcement cooperation has, however, led to scrutiny and legal challenges in several countries, including France.
Fact-Check Specific Claims
Claim #1: Pavel Durov has fathered over 100 children through sperm donations across 12 countries.
The article quotes Durov as saying, “I am the official father of six children… but the clinic where I started donating sperm fifteen years ago told me that more than 100 babies had been conceived… in 12 countries.” While clinics in some jurisdictions may inform donors of the number of offspring, legal recognition of parenthood generally requires formal acknowledgment, paternity tests, or court rulings.
Thus far, there is no publicly verifiable documentation confirming that any sperm donor—including Durov—is legally recognized as the parent of children conceived using their donations, unless done through parental consent or legal registration. Without further evidence, this claim remains anecdotal.
Conclusion: Insufficient evidence.
Claim #2: Durov has arranged a will that will distribute his entire $13.9 billion fortune equally among all the children he fathered, but access will be delayed for 30 years.
Durov’s quoted statement that he has written a will delaying inheritance by 30 years is plausible. In many jurisdictions, including the UAE and France—where Durov holds citizenship and assets—legal mechanisms such as trusts or special inheritance clauses allow for deferred distribution of wealth. These clauses can stipulate age requirements or time-based triggers for inheritance, as long as they comply with local inheritance laws.
However, equal distribution to over 100 children across different legal systems and with varying birthrights (biological vs. legally adopted or acknowledged) presents major legal hurdles. Without legal recognition of paternity in each relevant jurisdiction, they may not be eligible heirs. Experts in estate planning advise that cross-border inheritances of this scale often involve complex trusts, offshore structures, and special legal provisions to avoid disputes.
Conclusion: Largely plausible, but with significant legal implementation challenges that the article oversimplifies.
Claim #3: Durov faces criminal charges in France related to Telegram’s alleged failure to moderate illegal content.
The article states Durov is facing criminal charges in France after being accused of failing to moderate Telegram in connection with drug trafficking, child sexual abuse material, fraud, and other criminal uses of the platform. This was a key part of the BBC article’s focus.
Available legal reporting from French judicial sources and major news outlets supports that Telegram has been under scrutiny since at least 2022 for failing to respond adequately to government requests related to extremism and criminal content. However, details regarding Durov personally being charged or arrested remain unconfirmed in primary legal documents. Telegram has consistently denied wrongdoing and insists it cooperates with local authorities where applicable, although critics claim its enforcement measures are weaker than other platforms.
Conclusion: Largely accurate regarding Telegram’s scrutiny; however, claim about Durov’s personal criminal charges lacks definitive public legal documentation.
Claim #4: Telegram’s moderation policies are weaker than those of other social media platforms, enabling the spread of extremist and illegal content.
This assertion reflects a well-documented tension between Telegram’s privacy policy and public safety. Cybersecurity analysts and researchers have consistently stated that Telegram’s group chat structure, which allows up to 200,000 members per group and supports encrypted communications, creates challenges for moderation. While Telegram has taken steps in recent years to remove some extremist content, including banning ISIS-linked accounts and certain far-right channels, its moderation lags significantly behind platforms like Meta (Facebook, Instagram) or Google (YouTube), which deploy automated and human moderation on a larger scale.
Reports from institutions like the Brookings Institution and European security agencies support the idea that Telegram is used as a hub for both political activism and harmful content—including conspiracy theories, child exploitation material, and far-right mobilization.
Conclusion: True. Telegram’s moderation efforts are limited compared to major platforms, though the company does take some enforcement actions.
Conclusion
The article presents a compelling but somewhat sensationalized portrait of Pavel Durov’s personal and professional life. While some claims—like the inheritance delay and Telegram’s inadequate content moderation—are supported by facts and existing frameworks, other aspects such as the confirmed fatherhood of over 100 children and direct criminal charges against Durov require more convincing evidence. Importantly, the article lacks clarity on how the inheritance plan would be legally enforced across jurisdictions and beneficiaries. It also glosses over the complexity of estate law in such cases. Bias is minimal, although the dramatic headline may overstate the practical feasibility of the claims. Overall, the article blends truth with unverified assertions and lacks key legal context.
Take Action Now
Think before you share. Stay informed with real-time fact-checks that cut through the noise.
Download the DBUNK App.
