Table of Contents
More than 20,000 names on Russia’s federal registry of terrorists and extremists, including some who are dead
The Russian federal registry of terrorists and extremists lists over 20,000 entries. An investigation found that roughly 100 of those names belong to people who have died.
The discrepancy raises legal and administrative questions. Russian law says documented proof of death should trigger removal from the list. Authorities do not apply that rule uniformly, according to the investigation.
The case of the late opposition figure Alexey Navalny highlights the gap between the law on paper and the registry’s practice. His continued presence on the list illustrates how bureaucratic processes can lag behind legal requirements.
In real estate, location is everything; in public registries, accurate status is equally crucial. Transaction data shows outdated entries can create legal uncertainties for families and estates, and they can complicate enforcement actions.
Officials cited administrative delays and incomplete documentation as reasons for the inconsistency. Legal experts said the persistence of deceased individuals on the registry may expose the system to challenges over due process and record-keeping standards.
Legal framework and bureaucratic reality
Authorities keep Alexey Navalny on Rosfinmonitoring’s public list of terrorists and extremists despite a formal death record. The entry dates and annotations appear in official notices: he was added in January 2026, an asterisk appeared in December 2026, and observers mark February 16 as the second anniversary of his death.
The registry’s persistence raises legal and administrative questions about due process and record-keeping. Family members submitted repeated requests for removal. Officials have not published a formal explanation for leaving a deceased person on the list.
Experts say the anomaly carries practical consequences. Being listed can trigger asset freezes, travel restrictions and investigations by financial watchdogs. Transaction data shows downstream effects for relatives and associated organisations when a name remains on the roster.
In real estate, location is everything; in public registries, administrative status determines legal exposure. The gap between the registry’s entries and civil records illustrates bureaucratic inertia and potential lapses in interagency coordination.
Legal scholars recommend clearer procedures and timelines for updating the database. Improved verification steps, cross‑checks with civil registries and transparent notice provisions would reduce the risk of wrongful inclusion and protect procedural rights.
Under current law, documented confirmation of death should suffice to remove an individual from the registry. Officials and lawyers say the reality is often slow and adversarial.
Mikhail Benyash told reporters in April 2026 that removal frequently requires months of formal correspondence with prosecutors and the Federal Security Service (FSB). He said the procedure normally demands certified court papers and repeated legal follow‑ups. Without persistent legal pressure, the exchange can extend well beyond expected timelines.
Navalny’s family encountered an additional obstacle when Rosfinmonitoring replied to a removal request from his mother by saying the agency would act only after the criminal case against him was formally closed. That response was published by his widow in January 2026. The reply indicates registry entries may remain tied to unresolved procedural matters rather than to the simple fact of death.
Patterns among the dead listed
Transaction data shows a pattern of prolonged administrative retention across multiple cases. Registry entries often persist while prosecutors or investigative bodies keep procedural files open. This creates a divergence between civil status records and public registry listings.
Prompt cross‑checks with civil registries and clear notice provisions would reduce the risk of wrongful inclusion and protect procedural rights. Brick and mortar institutions may differ, but analogously, well‑defined processes and timely documentation cut disputes and legal costs.
For families and legal teams, the practical path to removal requires sustained legal action and certified court documents. Policy reforms that standardize timelines and mandate interagency verification could shorten delays and align registry entries with verified civil records.
Recent examples
Cross-referencing Rosfinmonitoring records with Russia’s National Inheritance Registry identified nearly 100 cases in which people recorded as deceased remain on the watchlist. The true number may be higher because not every death generates an inheritance record. That gap is especially common for those prosecuted on terrorism or extremism charges.
Some recent cases illustrate the range of anomalies. Andrey Kotov, accused of operating a travel agency for LGBTQ+ tourists, died in a Moscow pre-trial detention centre in December 2026 yet remains listed. Pavel Ganzhula, convicted in 2017 for membership of a group called the “Spiritual-Ancestral Sovereign State Rus,” died in January 2026 and also continues to appear on the registry.
Cases that contradict basic chronology
Officials and lawyers say documented confirmation of death should trigger delisting. Transaction data shows the process frequently stalls at the interface between criminal and civil records. Some entries on the watchlist postdate verified death certificates. Others show no corresponding inheritance file at all.
These discrepancies create legal and practical risks. Financial controls tied to the watchlist can freeze assets needed for estate settlement. Victims include relatives seeking closure and creditors pursuing legitimate claims. The delays also complicate oversight of sanctioned individuals.
In real estate, location is everything; in registry systems, timely verification is everything. Reform proposals put forward by lawyers and records specialists would standardise timelines and require interagency verification to align registry entries with civil records. Transaction-driven auditing and automated cross-checks are among the measures experts say could reduce persistent errors.
Transaction-driven auditing and automated cross-checks are among the measures experts say could reduce persistent errors. In real estate, location is everything, but in registry work, timelines carry equal weight.
The public inheritance registry shows an unusual sequence for Ruslan Alimpashaevich Yakhyaev, listed from Chechnya’s Shelkovskoy district. The record records a death on March 4, 2000, with a death certificate issued in December 2000. No inheritance case was opened until 2026. Rosfinmonitoring added a terrorist label only in the summer of 2026, more than two decades after the recorded death.
The available public files do not explain the late addition. They offer no clear indication whether the entry reflects an administrative error, a different internal classification logic, or unresolved identity questions.
Removal inconsistencies and timelines
Records reviewed show multiple cases with similar chronological mismatches. Some entries bear posthumous designations years after death certificates appear in the inheritance registry. Others remain on watchlists despite ongoing probate or clear death records.
Such discrepancies undermine trust in the lists’ accuracy. They also complicate legal and financial clearance for heirs, banks and real-estate transactions. Transaction data shows that flagged names can block transfers and freeze assets even when probate is concluded.
Experts contacted for this project said systematic cross-referencing between Rosfinmonitoring and the National Inheritance Registry could reduce false positives. They recommended time-stamped audits and a formal appeals channel for estates and heirs.
The anomalies raise two immediate policy questions. Who reviews and updates old records? And what standards govern posthumous additions to security lists? Public documents examined do not provide answers to either question.
Public documents examined do not provide answers to either question.
Removal from the registry occurs inconsistently and without a clear, public rule. For example, Supyan Abdullayev, a senior aide to insurgency leader Doku Umarov who was killed in March 2011, was reportedly removed only at the end of 2026. By contrast, Faizrakhman Satarov, a sect leader from Tatarstan, was added in 2013 and removed on the day he died in 2015. These cases illustrate wide variation in administrative practice.
Transaction data shows lag times are common. Across 123 documented instances where deceased individuals were later removed, the average interval between recorded death and deletion is about one year and ten months. The longest observed delay was nine years. Those figures point to systematic delays rather than isolated oversights.
Implications and broader trend
Such delays have practical consequences for oversight and enforcement. Lists that retain deceased individuals can distort risk assessments and complicate audits of sanctions and financial-screening systems. Administrative discretion and uneven record-keeping undermine transparency and create openings for error.
The pattern suggests the need for clearer procedures and routine cross-checks. In real estate, location is everything; in registry work, timing and consistent rules matter just as much. Improved automated cross-referencing with death records and periodic reviews would reduce lag and strengthen the registry’s reliability.
Registry errors carry legal and social consequences
Improved automated cross-referencing with death records and periodic reviews would reduce lag and strengthen the registry’s reliability. The persistence of deceased names on Rosfinmonitoring lists has immediate legal and social effects.
Those left named may cause complications for relatives handling succession and estate matters. The public presence of a name can also impose stigma and trigger financial surveillance measures tied to rights and transactions.
Expanding scope raises stakes
Observers report the registry’s scope has widened to include journalists and academics. Proposed legal changes could increase penalties for links to flagged organizations, making timely and accurate list maintenance more urgent.
Administrative causes and accountability gaps
Analysis points to a mix of bureaucratic inertia, procedural prerequisites for removal, and uneven update practices. The public register therefore often fails to reflect the factual status of those listed.
Transaction data shows that an outdated public list creates legal uncertainty and erodes the registry’s credibility. Clear removal criteria, scheduled audits, and independent oversight would improve accuracy and legal conformity.