Has the case of Ilia Perekopsky, long-time Telegram vice president and close associate of Pavel Durov, once again placed Bosnian institutions under a security test – or, how to strike a balance between investment opportunities and potential security threats?
In this context, the case of Ilia Perekopsky, co-founder of Telegram and close associate of Pavel Durov, who in March 2026 registered his residence in Banja Luka and submitted an application for Bosnian citizenship while announcing plans to take over the company EVA Genesis, represents much more than a story about a single investment. It is a new test for Bosnia and Herzegovina’s institutions and for the country’s ability to understand the relationship between economics, technology, and geopolitics.
The essence of the issue is not the fact that a “foreign investor” wants to invest in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but rather the pattern behind such investments: who wants to invest, why they want to invest, and under what conditions they seek to establish a presence.
Who is the actual investor? How much capital is involved and when will it be invested? How many jobs will be created, and what type of jobs will they be? What are the obligations, and what guarantees exist? What happens if the project fails?
In the case of Perekopsky and EVA Genesis, the public has been presented with an investment intention, but almost no information has been made available regarding the financial structure, project phases, or measurable outcomes. The process of acquiring citizenship under special provisions, based on the argument of future investments, raises the stakes even further.
Such mechanisms exist in other countries as well, but they generally involve rigorous background checks, clearly defined investment obligations, and transparent criteria. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the process often takes place in the opposite order: political support comes first, while only afterwards does the question arise of whether there is genuine capital behind the project and whether there is a sustainable business model.
To make the situation even more complex, Telegram has long ceased to be “just” a messaging application. Over the past decade, it has become a key platform in political campaigns, armed conflicts, information distribution, as well as the spread of disinformation.
Following the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Telegram came under increased scrutiny from Western security agencies. In 2024, French authorities launched an investigation into Pavel Durov over allegations that the platform had been used to facilitate the distribution of illegal content, money laundering, and other criminal activities.
The European Union has further tightened obligations for major digital platforms through the Digital Services Act (DSA), particularly regarding transparency requirements and the removal of illegal content.
At the end of July 2026, according to available information, Russia also initiated criminal proceedings against Durov over alleged assistance to terrorist activities. This does not mean that everyone connected to Telegram is automatically responsible for the same allegations, nor does it mean that every investment associated with such individuals carries a security risk.
However, precisely because of these complexities, serious states treat such cases as strategic issues.
The United States has for years conducted strict reviews of foreign investments through mechanisms such as the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which assesses potential national security risks. Within the European Union, member states have established national screening mechanisms for foreign direct investments, particularly in areas such as digital infrastructure, media, and technology.
In the region, Croatia places emphasis on verifying the origin of capital and the business history of investors, Slovenia conducts security assessments for investments in strategic sectors, while Serbia has strengthened oversight of certain major investments following negative experiences in the past.
Bosnia and Herzegovina formally has a legal framework regulating foreign direct investment and preventing money laundering. The new AML/CFT legislation requires competent institutions to verify the origin of funds and report suspicious transactions.
Bosnia and Herzegovina does not have a specific legal mechanism that would allow Russian nationals employed or engaged in the IT sector to obtain citizenship through an accelerated process. Like all other foreign nationals, they may establish a company, obtain temporary and permanent residence permits, and, after fulfilling the legal requirements, apply for citizenship through naturalisation. The decision is made through a prescribed procedure that includes security vetting by the competent authorities.
However, security experts warn that legitimate business models can become potential channels for hybrid activities if they are exploited to advance political, economic, or intelligence interests. According to their assessments, the risk does not lie in the legal framework itself but rather in possible shortcomings in the screening of investors and the identification of the beneficial owners of companies. This is why European countries are increasingly strengthening the scrutiny of foreign investments in sensitive sectors, including information technology, telecommunications, and digital infrastructure.
However, the country does not have a comprehensive system for assessing security, strategic, and reputational risks comparable to those in most EU countries or the United States. Responsibilities are divided among financial intelligence bodies, security agencies, and ministries, which in practice makes coordination more difficult.
Frequently, checks are either conducted superficially, carried out too late, or initiated only after certain processes have already been politically “closed.”
The company EVA Genesis, which has been mentioned as the entity behind the project in Bosnia and Herzegovina, is reportedly active in areas including digital marketing, IT, and the fashion industry. However, the public has not been provided with sufficient information regarding its ownership structure, financial performance, or specific investment plans in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
When someone seeks citizenship on the basis of claims that they will bring significant investments and create jobs, the minimum standard should be for institutions to clearly answer fundamental questions:
What is the value and timeline of the investment? How many jobs will be created, and what type? What contractual guarantees exist? What mechanisms are in place in the event the investment is not realised? What security checks have been conducted, and by which institutions?
Transparency does not obstruct investment; it makes sustainable investment possible.
When institutions clearly explain the reasons behind their decisions, present the checks that have been carried out, and establish oversight mechanisms, trust increases among both citizens and serious investors. Conversely, a lack of transparency, the absence of concrete information, and reliance on political promotion create space for suspicion, speculation, and ultimately a loss of confidence.
Failed investments do not only mean lost money. They undermine trust in institutions, damage the country’s international reputation, and reduce opportunities for investors who could genuinely contribute to development.
Bosnia and Herzegovina already has certain tools for regulating foreign investment and combating money laundering, but it lacks consistent implementation and stronger institutional coordination. Establishing a comprehensive foreign direct investment screening system that includes security, economic, and reputational assessments would be a logical next step.
Until then, every “major investment” will remain surrounded by questions — not necessarily because it is problematic, but because institutions have not demonstrated that they can convincingly prove its credibility.
Ultimately, the question raised by the case of Ilia Perekopsky is not whether Bosnia and Herzegovina should accept foreign investment. Such investments are necessary. The real question is how they should be assessed.
If institutions make decisions based on clear criteria, transparent procedures, and professional analyses, both the state and investors will benefit. If processes continue to rely primarily on political promises and media announcements, the risk of unsuccessful projects and declining public trust will remain high.
Bosnia and Herzegovina must learn to evaluate major investment announcements based on facts rather than political marketing. If investments are genuine and sustainable, they will withstand scrutiny from both the public and state institutions. If they are not, it is far better to establish that before the country assumes political, financial, or reputational risks.
The answer to this question will determine not only the future of this particular project but also Bosnia and Herzegovina’s ability to attract quality investors in the future while protecting its own economic and security interests.
Nino Bilajac. Journalist, Detektor.ba
The articles published in the “Opinions” column reflect the personal opinion of the author and may not coincide with the position of the Center
