What documented examples confirm the existence of rape chat groups on Telegram and their scale?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
German broadcaster ARD and its STRG_F investigative team infiltrated multiple Telegram text groups in late 2024 and reported channels and groups where thousands of men exchanged advice on drugging, raping and assaulting women, estimating aggregated membership figures as high as about 70,000 people [1] [2]. The reporting documents explicit messages, links to sedative sources, and shared photos/videos, while platform responses and law‑enforcement follow‑up remain contested and incompletely documented [1] [2] [3].
1. The core documentary finding: large, English‑speaking groups uncovered
Multiple news outlets citing the ARD/STRG_F probe described Telegram groups that "have as many as 70,000 members" and are mostly English‑speaking, with users appearing to come from a variety of countries, a figure repeated across international coverage [4] [1] [5] [2]. Investigative teams said they infiltrated several groups and channels with tens of thousands of users and recorded their content as part of a year‑long inquiry [3] [2].
2. What investigators documented inside the chats
Reporters documented users sharing step‑by‑step suggestions on incapacitating partners, tips on sedatives sold via online shops disguised as hair products, and in some cases posting pictures or live video of assaults, actions the investigative pieces cite as evidence of operationalized sexual violence discussion on the platform [1] [2] [5]. Media summaries repeatedly highlight the sharing of links to buy sedatives and explicit boasts or descriptions of assaults, which investigators presented as direct material from Telegram conversations [1] [2].
3. Corroborating criminal cases and the broader context
Coverage linked the existence of these chats to real‑world criminal proceedings, notably the Avignon mass‑rape trials and the conviction of Dominique Pélicot, who sedated his wife and allegedly offered her to other men — a case journalists used to illustrate how online communities can mirror or facilitate abuse campaigns [1] [5]. While the Pélicot conviction is a documented criminal case cited in the reporting, the investigation’s claim that chats both encouraged and shared footage of assaults is based on the journalists’ collected material rather than independent court filings across all alleged incidents [1] [3].
4. Telegram’s response and legal posture
Telegram publicly restated that content encouraging sexual violence violates its terms and said it removes violators, while also asserting limited cooperation unless authorities present valid legal requests such as warrants, a stance noted by outlets and in reporting on founder Pavel Durov’s legal scrutiny [4] [5]. Some coverage notes Telegram has claimed it will hand over IPs and phone numbers in response to lawful requests, and the company denies enabling such crimes despite the investigators’ findings [4] [5].
5. Where the documentation is strong — and where questions remain
The strongest documented evidence is the investigative team's firsthand collection of chat messages, membership counts of large public or semi‑public channels, and concrete examples of content and links shared inside those chats [1] [2] [3]. Significant gaps remain in public reporting about law‑enforcement follow‑up: investigators said they alerted authorities in several countries but later reported unclear or evasive official responses and did not produce a public tally of prosecutions directly tied to the Telegram network beyond isolated legal cases such as Pélicot [3]. Independent verification of every claimed assault tied to chat members, the permanence of removed groups, and the exact global membership overlap across channels is not fully demonstrated in the sourced reporting [3] [2].
6. Takeaway — confirmed existence, scale reported but partly journalistic
There is documented, contemporary journalistic evidence that Telegram hosted groups where users discussed and shared advice about sedating and raping women and that investigators estimated aggregated membership in the tens of thousands — figures widely reported as around 70,000 — but much of the public record rests on the investigators’ collected chat material and media synthesis rather than a public, court‑verified audit of every claim [1] [2] [3]. Telegram’s denials, assertions about removals, and the incomplete public record of law‑enforcement action are essential counterpoints that leave room for further official investigation and transparent evidentiary release [5] [4].