In May 2025, a series of fires broke out at properties linked to the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer: a car he once owned, a flat he had lived in, and the front door of his Kentish Town home where his sister-in-law was staying. No one was hurt, but the attacks were deliberate and coordinated. They were not the work of a sophisticated cell, but of two young men recruited online by a shadowy Russian-speaking figure offering payment in cryptocurrency. The case has exposed how vulnerable people can be turned into tools for state-backed sabotage, and how the resulting chaos can fuel dangerous conspiracy theories.
On 19 June 2026, Roman Lavrynovych, a 22-year-old Ukrainian national, was jailed for seven years at the Old Bailey for conspiracy to commit arson and for damaging property by fire, being reckless as to whether life was endangered. Stanislav Carpiuc, a 27-year-old Ukrainian-born Romanian national, was sentenced to two years for conspiracy. A third man, Petro Pochynok, 35, was acquitted. The judge, Mr Justice Garnham, described Lavrynovych as a “useful idiot” and a “pawn” who had been “easily bought”. The court heard that the attacks were ordered on behalf of Russia, orchestrated by an anonymous Telegram user known as “EL” or “El Money”. Lavrynovych was recruited through the encrypted messaging app, offered money in cryptocurrency to set fires and make sure they got on the news. He had previously been hired by the same person to put up far-right posters. Carpiuc played a supporting role, encouraging Lavrynovych and offering to help convert the cryptocurrency into cash.
“How two men recruited on Telegram carried out arson attacks on Starmer's property, and the disinformation that followed.”
The first attack came on 8 May 2025, when a Toyota Rav4 previously owned by Starmer was set on fire. On 11 May, a fire was discovered at flats in Islington that Starmer had once lived in. Early on 12 May, a fire was started at the entrance of his Kentish Town home, which he still owned and was renting to his sister-in-law, Judith Alexander. She told the trial of billowing black smoke going up the stairs while she, her daughter and her partner were inside. The judge noted that Lavrynovych was “utterly reckless” about the risk to life. After the final fire, “EL” messaged Lavrynovych, saying he would send money and urging him to leave the city. But Lavrynovych was arrested hours later, having never been paid. The court heard that “EL” expressed frustration that the attacks initially received little press coverage.
These attacks are part of a wider pattern: hostile states using low-cost, deniable operations to intimidate political figures and destabilise society. By recruiting “useful idiots” online – often young, financially desperate, or politically naive – foreign actors can cause real harm while staying hidden. The judge described Lavrynovych as a “complete and utter foot soldier”, easily manipulated after accepting “grubby little tasks”. His lawyer said he felt shame for bringing dishonour on his family in Ukraine. But the consequences go beyond the damage done. As the case came to court, a bizarre conspiracy theory spread on social media: that the arsonists were “rent boys” who had sold sexual services to Starmer and set fires when he refused to pay. This theory was promoted by figures including George Galloway and Tommy Robinson, and was amplified by pro-Russian accounts. It took hold because reporting restrictions prevented the media from revealing the suspects’ backgrounds and the Russian link until the trial ended. The BBC reported on 15 June 2026 that the attacks were ordered on behalf of Russia, but many online refused to believe it – one TikTok comment called it “absolute bullshit” and suggested it was “a lovers tiff”.
Q: Why would Russia order arson attacks on the UK Prime Minister’s property? The court heard that the attacks were ordered on behalf of Russia, though no direct Kremlin link was detailed in the trial. The New Statesman noted that the UK has committed billions of pounds to Ukraine in its war against Russia, and that Russian state media has broadcast proposals to attack Britain. The attacks appear designed to cause disruption, generate negative media coverage, and intimidate a political leader supporting Ukraine. They also feed into a broader campaign of disinformation and social division.
Q: How do online recruiters like “El Money” operate? Recruiters use encrypted messaging apps like Telegram to target vulnerable individuals. They offer small payments – in this case £3,000 in cryptocurrency – for simple but high-impact actions like arson. They provide specific instructions, such as where to mix flammable liquids and how to record the attack. The aim is to achieve maximum publicity with minimal cost and risk to themselves. The recruited individuals are often unaware of the full geopolitical context and are treated as disposable pawns.
Q: Why did a conspiracy theory about “rent boys” emerge? After the arrests but before the trial, reporting restrictions meant the media could not reveal the suspects’ backgrounds or the connection to Russia. Social media filled the gap with speculation: two of the men had profiles on a photography site offering work as beginner models, which was twisted into claims they were male prostitutes. This theory fit a pre-existing narrative on the far-right that Starmer is secretly gay and corrupt. The conspiracy was promoted by influential figures and gained traction because it seemed to explain why the mainstream media was “quiet”. Even after the BBC revealed the Russian link, many online refused to accept it.
What happens next is unclear. Lavrynovych and Carpiuc are now in prison, but “El Money” remains unidentified and at large. The case highlights the difficulty of stopping such low-cost, high-deniability operations. The UK security services will likely increase monitoring of Telegram and other platforms for similar recruitment attempts. Meanwhile, the conspiracy theories show no sign of fading: they have become a staple of alternative news loops, and may influence how future state-backed attacks are perceived by the public. The judge’s warning that Lavrynovych was “the sort of person who could be easily manipulated” may be the most troubling lesson of all.