Danila Kozlovsky addressed the online rumor mill on his Telegram channel, clarifying that his work and earnings are rooted in Russia. He spoke plainly about the speculation surrounding his finances and the idea that his professional success occurs only within the borders of his home country.
In response to claims that Vitaly Borodin, who leads the Federal Security and Anti-Corruption Project, had reportedly lost money in the United States and traveled to Russia to find work, Kozlovsky insisted that his income has been generated entirely within Russia. He emphasized that there is no financial activity outside the Russian economy and urged observers to focus on verified information rather than gossip spread online. This stance was paired with a pointed invitation for Borodin to verify facts by submitting another inquiry to the tax authorities, a move Kozlovsky suggested Borodin could pursue over the upcoming weekend.
Beyond the public discourse about money and duty, Kozlovsky highlighted his commitment to charitable work. He noted that he has participated in demonstrations and fundraisers where proceeds from performances are directed to a fund dedicated to supporting children with serious illnesses. He stressed that his involvement in these charity events is not compensated, underscoring the philanthropic purpose behind such appearances and the genuine social impact they aim to achieve.
On the topic of his regular theater engagements, Kozlovsky offered a candid assessment of the financial realities faced by state repertory theater performers. He admitted that even with steady work, the compensation may not fully offset the costs tied to performances, travel, and accommodations, especially given that he does not reside in the city of St. Petersburg. He noted that the situation often results in personal expenditures on essential logistics, which can reduce the overall take-home amount despite ongoing artistic commitments in the theater scene.
Earlier reports had indicated that Kozlovsky was considering legal action against Borodin, signaling a broader dispute over accountability and the handling of personal finances in public life. This development has kept the conversation in the media focused on how public figures respond to allegations and how financial transparency is pursued in high-profile cases. In such moments, actors and other celebrities frequently navigate a delicate balance between defending their reputations and addressing legitimate concerns raised by critics and institutions alike. The evolving situation continues to draw attention to the interplay between artistic work, public perception, and the mechanisms available for dispute resolution.