The Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation announced an investigation into businessman Oleg Tinkov under the extremist article 282 of the Criminal Code for allegedly inciting hatred toward Russia. The report surfaced on the Telegram channel Puree, which claimed the probe centers on a social media post that touched on Russia itself.
The official rationale presented was tied to a post on Instagram. The platform owner, Meta, has previously been labeled extremist and faced a ban within Russia, a backdrop that informs the broader context of the case. The Telegram channel suggested that the capstone of the case rests on content created or shared by Tinkov that allegedly disparaged the Russian state and its institutions.
According to the channel, activists affiliated with the religious group known as the Morozov Brotherhood – Zlatoust filed a formal complaint against the entrepreneur. The group contends that the post not only targeted Russia but also inflamed hostility toward native Russian speakers and foundational cultural values that many Russians regard as integral to their national identity. As commentary on social media becomes the center of legal scrutiny, observers note that the case touches issues of free expression, state messaging, and the boundaries of online discourse in contemporary Russia [attribution: Telegram channel Puree].
Earlier this year, Oleg Deripaska, a prominent Russian businessman, initiated a civil action seeking damages of 20 million rubles in response to a controversial post. The Ust-Labinsky Court of the Krasnodar Territory upheld Deripaska’s claim, ruling that the content disseminated by Tinkov was unreliable, harmed his reputation, and breached the standards of honesty expected in business communications. During the dispute, Tinkov had asserted in a live broadcast that Deripaska had allegedly “seized almost the entire Russian economy,” a claim that influenced the court’s assessment of the post’s impact and the accompanying reputational harm [attribution: court ruling summary and media reports].
The public conversation around these events has been intensified by a prior instance in which Tinkov posed topless atop a mountain in Greece, a photograph that circulated widely and contributed to the ongoing discourse about the businessman’s public persona. This image, while not directly tied to the legal case at hand, is frequently cited in discussions about media portrayal, personal branding, and the varying standards applied to public figures under Russian media law and cultural expectations. The broader narrative juxtaposes aggressive online rhetoric with formal legal action, illustrating how digital content can become a focal point in high-stakes disputes among influential business figures [attribution: media coverage].