02078-25 Alexander Pershikov, Alexander Sapov, and GetTransfer v The Sun

Summary of Complaint

1. Alexander Pershikov, Alexander Sapov, and GetTransfer complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Sun breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “F.O. USED TAXI FIRM WITH KREMLIN LINKS”, published on 17 May 2025.

2. The article – which appeared on page 6– opened by reporting: “The Foreign Office used a firm with links to the Kremlin to book David Lammy’s fare-row taxi. GetTransfer was founded by Russian playboy entrepreneur Alexander Pershikov, as well as Alexander Sapov”.

3. It reported: “Pershikov and Sapov, then 32 and 29, worked for a communications agency called Kremlin Multimedia in November 2012. The company worked on pro-government projects and sought to promote Moscow as a tourist location. It also pushed brands for Moscow and Russia and represented some politicians, including Dmitry Medvedev, a crony of Vladimir Putin.”

4. The article also appeared online in substantively the same format, under the headline: “KREM-LINKS David Lammy’s fare-row taxi booked by firm with links to the KREMLIN”. The online article also included a sub-headline: “Two founders once worked for a company that worked on pro-Government projects and sought to promote Moscow as a tourist destination”. The online article was published at 10:03pm on 16 May 2025.

5. The publication contacted GetTransfer via email at 4:14pm on 16 May, prior to the article’s publication. Its email stated that the story would “highlight [that] Get Transfer has links to Russia. These include being founded by Russian entrepreneur Alexander Pershikov”. Its email requested a response within “the next couple of hours”.

6. The publication, at 6:07pm, sent a further email, which stated:

“Just to add on the links to Russia. The story will highlight the following:

Parshikov and Sapov, then 32 and 29, worked for a communications agency called Kremlin Multimedia in November 2022. The agency worked on pro-government projects and sought to promote Moscow as a tourist location. It also pushed brands for Moscow and Russia and represented some politicians, including Dmitry Medvedev, a crony of Vladimir Putin.”

7. At 6.24pm, GetTransfer responded saying it would provide a reply within 30 minutes. In response, at 6.26pm, the publication noted that its article would be “focused on the links with Russia”, and would disregard other elements it previously raised.

8. At 7.42pm, GetTransfer provided a response to the publication. In response to the above question, it stated:

“The dates provided are incorrect. Kremlin Multimedia was a private entrepreneurial venture promoting Moscow’s tourism attractions and museums, entirely funded by non-governmental sources, similar to private ventures like londonpass.com. The agency ceased operations in 2012. Additionally, for clarity, Alexander Pershikov is currently 44, and Alexander Sapov is 42 years old.”

9. Following the article’s publication, the complainants complained to IPSO. They complained that the article breached Clause 1 on numerous points.

10. Firstly, the complainants said that the article misleadingly referred to Kremlin Multimedia as “Kremlin.” They complained that this was sensationalised, and made the agency sound like “the Kremlin” itself – misleading readers into believing the organisation was linked to the Russian Government. Further, the complainants said that the article inaccurately reported that Kremlin Multimedia was linked to the Russian Government, and had worked on “pro-Government” projects. They said it was a “private startup” which aimed “to promote Russian cultural heritage and improve the tourist experience in Moscow” – it was not a government agency and had no government funding, links or control.

11. The complainants said that the article omitted to report that Kremlin Multimedia closed in 2012 – they said that this omission breached Clause 1, as it misleadingly suggested the company was still in operation. They considered this reporting this information would have “gut[ted] the premise of any current ‘Kremlin link’”.

12. Further to this point, the complainant also complained that the article was inaccurate to report that GetTransfer had “links” to the Kremlin. They complained that no such link existed. As part of their complaint on this point, they also stated that GetTransfer had not met – let alone “represented” - Dmitry Medvedev.

13. The complainants also complained about the description of Alexander Pershikov as a “Russian playboy”. They said that this “wrongly implies a frivolous, irresponsible, or morally questionable individual”, and did not reflect Mr Pershikov’s lifestyle or professional history.

14. The complainants also said that the article had been “deliberately and specifically engineered” to amplify the key words which, they considered, were inaccurate – for example, it stated that the article’s metadata, hyperlinks and SEO keywords featured terms such as “Kremlin” and “playboy”.

15. The complainants also complained that the article was biased and unbalanced, in breach of Clause 1. They also said they had been given insufficient time to respond to the newspaper’s request for comment, and that none of the clarifying information they provided in response was included in the article.

16. During IPSO’s investigation, the complainants also complained about the description of GetTransfer as a “taxi firm”. They said that the organisation does not own or operate taxis – rather, it “facilitates an online marketplace for travel transportation bookings”.

17. The complainants also complained under Clause 12. They stated that the article demonised Mr Pershikov due to his Russian nationality.

18. Regarding the claim that the complainants had represented Mr Medvedev, the publication said that public sources showed that Kremlin Multimedia “actively promoted” Mr Medvedev’s brand in its online output - its “First National Internet Presence Rating of Russian Politicians and Public Figures” ranked Mr Medvedev as Russia’s most “web-savvy politician”. It supplied multiple contemporaneous news reports which it said demonstrated this.

19. It also noted that the complainants had not denied this claim during pre-publication correspondence with the newspaper, and said that it was entitled to rely on the fact this had not been disputed. Given this, and given the “unique context of the Russian political economy”, it said it was not unreasonable for it to report that the company had “represented” Mr Medvedev. It offered, however, to publish the following, either as a footnote to the online article – accompanied by amendments to the article – or in its Corrections and Clarifications' column:

“A 17 May article said that Kremlin Multimedia LLC had 'represented' some politicians including Dmitry Medvedev. While the company published statements supportive of Mr Medvedev, its founders have told us that they did not ‘represent’ Mr Medvedev or any Russian politician.”

20. The publication made the above proposal within 10 working days of being contacted by IPSO about the complaint.

21. The publication also denied that any breach of Clause 1 arose from to the article’s references to Kremlin Multimedia. It said the complainants could not dispute that the company “worked on pro-government projects and sought to promote Moscow as a tourist location”, or that it had had “pushed brands for Moscow and Russia” – it later supplied examples it considered supported this position to IPSO. These included images of the company’s former website. The images showed that the website included the following pages: “Virtual tour of the Moscow Kremlin” and “Conference of the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation ‘Competition in Russia: How to Create a Favourable Climate for Business Development?’”.

22. It also referred to the company’s Youtube channel, which featured videos of speakers at a “Competition in Russia” conference – it said that the channel included videos of a number of Russian politicians speaking at the conference.

23. Additionally, the publication said that the company was involved in promoting Russian state policy, in particular, tourism in Moscow. It commented that the organisation’s “mission statement”, taken from the website and which it supplied to IPSO, was pro-government: “Creating a positive image of Russia abroad and forming national consciousness through the popularisation of socially significant projects”.

24. The publication also did not accept it was inaccurate or misleading to refer to Kremlin Multimedia LLC using the shortened term “Kremlin”. It also noted that the article referred to the company as “Kremlin Multimedia”.

25. The publication did not accept it was inaccurate to describe Mr Pershikov as a “Russian playboy”. It noted that the term was inherently subjective, and commented that the complainant’s Instagram account showed his “luxury lifestyle travelling to glamorous destinations”. It supplied images from complainant’s Instagram account which included one which showed him in Mykonos, and two of him alongside actors.

26. The publication disputed the complainant’s position that it had failed to make clear the extent of its story in prior correspondence, or that the complainants had not been provided with sufficient time to respond. It noted that the complainants had not requested additional time to respond, nor had they suggested at the time the request for comment was being sought that the initial deadline was unreasonable.

27. In response, the complainants maintained that the article had inaccurately reported that they had “represented” Mr Medvedev. They had independently ranked him in a ratings of the popularity of public figures – the term “representation” suggested a formal or professional affiliation, which was not the case.

28. The complainants also maintained that Kremlin Multimedia had not worked on “pro-Government” projects, nor did it have links to the Russian government – they commented that, by the publication’s logic, any private business endeavour which aligned with a public policy goal could be branded as “government propaganda”. They also stated that none of the examples put forward by the publication on this point demonstrated any government directive or financing behind Kremlin Multimedia.

29. They also disputed that reported claims were put to them in prior correspondence – they said that “at no point” were they told the article would report that Kremlin Multimedia “worked on pro-government projects”; “represented” politicians such as Mr Medvedev; or that Mr Pershikov would be labelled a “playboy”.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Clause 12 (Discrimination)

i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's, race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.

ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.

Findings of the Committee

30. The newspaper, while denying a breach of the Code, had offered to publish a correction in response to one of the complainants’ points of complaint – whether they had “represented” Dmitry Medvedev. The Committee began with this point.

31. The Committee noted that the claim had been put to the complainants in prior correspondence. As part of their complaint, they had later complained the claim had not been put to them, and that the newspaper had not conveyed this point in correspondence – this was inaccurate. The publication, in its subsequent email of 6:07pm and while inviting comment, had stated: “[Kremlin Multimedia] also pushed brands for Moscow and Russia and represented some politicians, including Dmitry Medvedev”. The complainants had responded to this specific section of the publication’s email as part of their response ahead of the article’s publication, but had not disputed the claim regarding Mr Medvedev.

32. Given this, the publication had taken sufficient care over the accuracy of its article – it had put the claim to the complainants, who had not disputed or rebutted it. There was no breach of Clause 1 (i).

33. However, the Committee did consider, however, that the term was inaccurate. In the Committee’s view, the term “represent” implied a professional relationship between the complainants and Mr Medvedev. While the complainant’s rankings may have promoted his personal brand, the Committee did not consider that this meant Kremlin Multimedia had represented Mr Medvedev in the professional capacity implied by the article. The Committee did not consider that this claim had been sufficiently supported by the evidence put forward by the publication.

34. The Committee also considered that reporting that the complainants had represented Mr Medvedev constituted a significant inaccuracy – as a close political ally of Vladimir Putin, the Committee considered that this could significantly impact a reader’s perception of the complainants and their defunct business. The inaccuracies therefore required correction, as per the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

35. The publication had offered to publish a correction on this point in its Corrections and Clarifications column – it had also offered to publish the correction as a footnote to the online article, and to amend the text. The Committee considered that a reader of the print article would expect a correction to appear in the Corrections and Clarifications column, while amending the text of an online article and publishing a correction as a footnote is generally considered duly prominent – both sufficed for the purposes of Clause 1 (ii).

36. The Committee noted that the correction had been offered within 10 working days of IPSO notifying the publication that the complaint raised a possible breach of the Code. The Committee noted that the complainant had expressed a number of concerns, and that their submissions had been lengthy, with information sometimes repeated or expressed in different terms. It was not, therefore, unreasonable that the publication required time to properly review and respond to the complaint, and, in this specific case, it therefore considered the offered corrections to have been offered with sufficient promptness.

37. The Committee considered that the correction corrected the record – it made clear that the article had reported that the complainants “had 'represented' some politicians including Dmitry Medvedev”, but that the founders had told the publication this was not the case.

38. The Committee was therefore satisfied that the publication had fulfilled its obligations under Clause 1 (ii). There was no breach of the Clause.

39. The Committee then turned to the remainder of the complainant’s concerns. They had complained that the article inaccurately reported that Kremlin Multimedia worked on “pro-Government” projects – they had also complained that their current company, GetTransfer, had been described as having “links to the Kremlin”.

40. The Committee noted that the basis for reporting that GetTransfer had “links” to the Kremlin was made clear in the article: the complainants had previously worked for Kremlin Multimedia which had worked on “pro-Government” projects.

41. The publication had put forward evidence that the defunct organisation had worked on a number of projects which appeared to endorse Russia – for example, a “virtual tour” of the Kremlin. Further, it had noted the company’s mission statement was: “Creating a positive image of Russia abroad and forming national consciousness through the popularisation of socially significant projects.”

42. While the Committee noted the complainants’ contention that the business was solely focused on promoting tourism, the Committee considered that the publication had demonstrated a basis for reporting that the GetTransfer had “Kremlin links”, and that Kremlin Multimedia had worked “on pro-government projects and sought to promote Moscow as a tourist location”. It also noted that the article did not report that the organisation was a government agency, or that it was funded by the government. The claim had also been put to the complainants prior to publication – the publication’s emails said the story would also “highlight” that the company has “links to Russia”, and the “agency worked on pro-government projects”. The Committee did not consider the article was inaccurate on this point, and there was no breach of Clause 1.

43. The complainants had also complained that the article referred to Kremlin Multimedia as just “Kremlin”. The Committee noted that the article did not do this – it referred to “Kremlin links” or “links to the Kremlin” which, as covered above, did not raise a breach of the Code. When the company was referenced in the article, it was described using name of Kremlin Multimedia. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

44. The complainants had also complained that the article omitted to report that Kremlin Multimedia had closed in 2012. The Committee noted that newspaper have a right to choose which pieces of information they publish, provided it does not lead to a breach of the Code. The Committee did not consider the date of Kremlin Multimedia’s closure, or the fact it had closed, necessary to ensure the article was accurate: the article reported on the complainant’s current business, GetTransfer, and the reason for referencing Kremlin Multimedia was made clear. Omitting whether or not the business was still in operation did not render the article as a whole inaccurate or misleading. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

45. The complainants had complained about the description of GetTransfer as a “taxi firm”. The Committee noted that – by the complainants’ own admission – the company “facilitates an online marketplace for travel transportation bookings”. It was not in dispute that it was involved in the booking of taxis. Given this, the Committee did not consider it was inaccurate, misleading, or distorted to describe the organisation as a “taxi firm”. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

46. The complainants had complained about the description of Mr Pershikov as a “Russian playboy”. The Committee noted that this term was inherently subjective, and there was no one set definition of the term. Where the publication had supplied images of Mr Pershikov attending holiday destinations, and meeting Russian actors, a sufficient basis had been provided for the publication’s subjective characterisation. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

47. The Committee then turned to the complainant’s concern that the article had been “deliberately and specifically engineered” to amplify key words such as “Kremlin” and “playboy”. The Committee noted that the choice of which words to amplify is a matter for a newspaper’s editorial discretion, provided the Code is not otherwise breached. As noted above, the use of these words did not raise a breach of the Code, and therefore their use in the article’s hyperlinks, metadata, and SEO terms also did not raise a breach of the Code.

48. The Committee considered the complainants’ concern that they had been provided insufficient time to reply to the newspaper, and that their response had not been made clear in the article. It noted that the complainant had responded to the newspaper’s email within its specified deadline, prior to publication, and had not indicated that it required further time to respond. Given this, the Committee did not consider that any breach of Clause 1 arose in this respect.

49. Further, the Committee noted, as above, that the publication was not required to report the entirety of the complainant’s response as part of the article. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

50. Finally, the Committee turned to the complainant’s concern that the article was biased, and lacked balance. The Committee was clear that newspapers are entitled to be biased – and are not required to ensure their reporting is balanced – provided the Code is not breached. Notwithstanding the inaccurate reference to the complainant “representing” Mr Medvedev, no breach of Clause 1 arose on this point.

51. The Committee then turned to Clause 12. The article had, indisputably, referred to Mr Pershikov’s Russian nationality. It noted that the terms of Clause 12 do not specifically cover nationality – though, in some cases, references to an individual’s nationality may constitute a reference to their race.

52. At any rate, the Committee did not consider that the references to Mr Pershikov’s nationality were irrelevant, prejudicial, or pejorative. The crux of the story concerned the Foreign Secretary using the complainants’ company, and related to the complainants’ alleged connections to the Russian government. Mr Pershikov’s nationality was, therefore, of clear relevance to the story.

53. The Committee noted that the article had referred to Mr Perhikov as a “Russian playboy”. It considered, as above, that the term “playboy” was reflective of the publication’s interpretation of his lifestyle; the Committee did not consider this to be a prejudicial or pejorative reference to his nationality. There was no breach of Clause 12 on this point.

Conclusions

54. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

55. The correction which was offered clearly put the correct position on record, and was offered promptly and with due prominence, and should now be published.

Date complaint received: 22/05/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 02/01/2026

Independent Complaints Reviewer

The complainant complained to the Independent Complaints Reviewer about the process followed by IPSO in handling this complaint. The Independent Complaints Reviewer decided that the process was not flawed and did not uphold the request for review.