Introduction

The virtual operator and fintech ecosystem Humans has swiftly become the focal point of major financial conflicts in Uzbekistan. Launched in 2020 on the infrastructure of Uzbektelecom, the company amassed significant debts to its partners. Between 2024 and 2025, these disagreements escalated into legal and arbitration disputes involving claims worth billions. This investigation confirms and documents Humans’ debts to key partners—the state operator Uzbektelecom and Octobank—analyzes related court rulings, and reveals the ownership structure and beneficiaries behind Humans. We rely solely on verified sources: official statements, court documents, and reputable media. Unconfirmed information is presented as theories or open questions. This report is intended for regulators, investors, and business partners seeking clarity on the Humans situation.

Courts

At the end of January 2025, Humans Group celebrated impressive achievements from 2024: its fintech service, Humans Pay, saw revenue grow by 60%, while active users in its ecosystem exceeded 2.3 million—a 28% increase year-over-year. According to the company, total transaction volume approached 18 trillion soms, with revenue exceeding 500 billion. However, alongside these glowing reports, a very different picture emerged: between late 2024 and early 2025, around 13 lawsuits were filed against Humans by its financial partners, primarily banks. The claims allege multi-million debts for acquiring, processing, and cash management services—and in some cases exceed $100 million. Notably, none of these debts are reflected in any publicly available financial statements from Humans Group. The company thus appears to tout rapid growth while concealing serious liabilities that could nullify all its reported success.

Debt to Uzbektelecom

By 2025, Humans had accumulated over 520 billion soms (approximately $43 million) in debt to the national operator Uzbektelecom. On May 8, 2025, the Tashkent Economic Court ruled in favor of Uzbektelecom, ordering Humans LLC to repay the debt. The bulk—about 497 billion soms—reflected unpaid telecom services, plus late-payment penalties. The court reduced penalties to 23.5 billion soms, bringing the total award to 520.5 billion. Humans’ appeal was still pending as of June 2025.

Debt to Octobank

In January 2025, Octobank filed suit against Humans LLC for failing to fulfill its obligations under a contract related to UPay payment cards. The bank claimed Humans systematically violated the agreement by failing to reimburse transactions and pay fees, resulting in a debt exceeding 500 billion soms. On June 13, 2025, the Tashkent Economic Court ruled in favor of Octobank, ordering Humans to repay the debt. Humans responded by announcing its intention to file a counterclaim against Octobank for alleged unlawful deductions. Despite this, as of mid-June 2025, the court decision favoring Octobank had come into effect.

Owners of Humans: Ultimate Beneficiary and Offshore Links

Who stands behind Humans and its complex ecosystem? Officially, the Uzbek business Humans LLC is owned by Singapore-based Humans Mobile Ltd., part of the international Humans Group holding. This Singaporean entity filed an ICSID arbitration claim on behalf of the investor—likely leveraging the investment protection treaty between Singapore and Uzbekistan, thereby engaging the World Bank’s jurisdiction. Thus, formally, the investor in Humans is Singaporean, as shown in arbitration filings. However, this Singaporean registration is only part of the chain. The ultimate beneficiary is founder Vladimir Dobrynine, a Russian entrepreneur and telecom executive. Previously CEO of Yota and marketing director at MegaFon and VimpelCom, Dobrynine launched Humans initially in the U.S. in 2016, then shifted focus to Uzbekistan. He is publicly presented as CEO and visionary of Humans Group and, according to media, is the controlling owner. The company is portrayed as an international ecosystem integrating telecom, fintech, and digital services, headquartered in Singapore (Pte. Ltd.). Major investments likely flow through the Singaporean entity.

Ownership structure (simplified): Vladimir Dobrynine (ultimate beneficiary) → controls international holding Humans Group → owns Singapore-based Humans Mobile Ltd. → which officially holds Uzbekistan-based Humans LLC.

Humans’ affiliated network extends beyond Singapore. Publicly available data show team members in Cyprus, Poland, Germany, the U.S., and Uzbekistan—suggesting legal entities or offices in these jurisdictions, likely for R&D, operations, or tax planning. Cyprus is especially notable, traditionally used as a holding hub for Eastern European businesses. While registry evidence on Cyprus-linked Humans subsidiaries is lacking, the presence of Cyprus-based personnel is indirectly confirmed via the official Humans Group page. It can be assumed that functions like financing or IP ownership are based there. Thus, the group’s structure appears as follows: founder (Russia) → holding (Singapore and possibly Cyprus) → operational subsidiaries (e.g., Uzbekistan, USA, etc.).

Importantly, the international corporate structure does not shield Humans from local obligations—Uzbek courts rule against Humans LLC under national law. But the multi-jurisdictional setup enables the dispute to be taken to international arbitration, as they have done. Note: Humans Group is privately held, and shareholder composition is undisclosed. In a 2022 interview, Dobrynine mentioned raising around $5 million for the U.S. platform launch, without naming investors. It is likely the majority stake remains with him and possibly a few partners. The lack of prominent venture-fund involvement during the 2024–2025 crisis suggests no major external investors participated; all statements are from Dobrynine or Humans’ PR. Thus, the de facto ultimate beneficiary and responsible individual is Vladimir Dobrynine, who orchestrates the business via a chain of offshore companies. In June 2025, he stated his belief in Uzbekistan but declared he will seek justice and investment protection by civilized means.

Geographic Footprint: Were Similar Problems Found Elsewhere?

We reviewed open sources for comparable conflicts outside Uzbekistan.

Germany. Humans planned a German market launch. In December 2021, according to Dobrynine, a contract was signed with Vodafone Germany to launch humans.de—a full analogue of its Uzbek super-app—scheduled for 2022 using the same IT systems as in Uzbekistan. However, by mid-2025 there is no public evidence of a full rollout. Likely due to financial and reputational troubles in Uzbekistan, international expansion was delayed. There are no records of lawsuits or debts against Humans in Germany—understandable, given minimal or no active operations. Thus, no pattern of debt or litigation has emerged in Germany; it was a potential market, not a hotspot for conflict.

USA. Interestingly, the business began in the U.S. but in a different format. Between 2016 and 2018, the team launched Humans.net in New York—a freelance marketplace connecting clients and contractors directly. That startup secured about $5 million in investment and operated in the U.S., focusing on freelancers. By 2021, turnover in Uzbekistan reached $25.2 million, while the U.S. service continued concurrently. There is no record of scandals or lawsuits related to Humans.net in the U.S. So the model—online-only—avoided reliance on partner infrastructure, and thus avoided debt risk. Therefore, the conflict pattern is specific to the telecom/fintech venture in Uzbekistan, where dependency on partners and regulators is high. In the U.S., the model was different, and such debt disputes did not arise.

Other countries. The Humans team mentions presence in Poland and Cyprus, likely for software development and financial operations. No scandals are known in these jurisdictions. One notable exception: in October 2024, the Uzbekistan Central Bank fined two commercial banks and suspended Humans’ subsidiary UPay over transaction compliance breaches—though this occurred within Uzbekistan, it revealed compliance issues possibly linked to international channels. Beyond Uzbekistan, there is no data on legal claims against Humans or its structures.

It appears Uzbekistan was the primary sandbox for their telecom-fintech model: aggressive growth—initially distributing tens of thousands of free SIMs in a marketing campaign—followed by regulatory challenges and debt. Other countries have thus far served as support regions (Eastern Europe dev, potential markets like Germany). As of publication, no equivalent debt crisis is recorded outside Uzbekistan.

Conclusions & Analytical Insights

In Uzbekistan, Humans has transformed from a promising fintech startup into a troubled market player, with court-validated debts exceeding $80 million to strategic partners. Both the economic court of Tashkent have adjudicated debts to the state telecom (≈520 billion soms) and to the acquiring bank (≈500 billion soms) during May–June 2025—a peak of a prolonged conflict. These rulings are a stark warning, indicative of insolvency or financial misconduct in relations with key counterparties.

Meanwhile, Humans’ management is adopting a defensive strategy, contesting claims via counterclaims and international arbitration. The founder, leveraging foreign-investor status through the Singapore entity, has initiated an ICSID case against the government of Uzbekistan. He alleges wrongful actions by regulators (including Uzbektelecom and the Central Bank) that led to unprofitability, shifting some blame to state actors. However, regardless of arbitration outcomes, the domestic debts remain enforceable within Uzbekistan. Avoidance/delay in repayment could trigger more severe consequences—bank account garnishment, license revocation, or bankruptcy of the local subsidiary.

For regulators, this case is a test. Uzbekistan seeks to position itself as investor-friendly, but must also uphold contract enforcement. The precedent set by Humans will reflect the country’s ability to resolve disputes under the rule of law without deterring future investment. So far regulators have taken a hard stance: the Central Bank suspended UPay over violations, and Uzbektelecom and Octobank secured favorable court decisions.

For Humans’ customers—mobile subscribers and UPay cardholders—the disruption is significant: since June 2025, banking cards stopped working, and telecom services via Uzbektelecom may be at risk if relations deteriorate. This undermines trust in private service providers and underscores the importance of financially sustainable models.

The company’s ownership structure—with offshore jurisdictions (Singapore, possibly Cyprus) and lack of transparency—adds further concern. In a worst-case escalation, debt enforcement may be hindered if assets reside abroad. While Uzbek courts enforce against Humans LLC, much of the group’s assets could be offshore.

This serves as a caution for investors: high-risk models relying on subsidies from a parent company may collapse if the parent encounters regulatory or financial hurdles. Investors and partners should learn from the Humans example: aggressive expansion and weak financial discipline can precipitate a legal collapse. A company promising a "revolution" in telecom and finance now fights legal battles even with the state. Reputational costs are massive: the brand is now associated with 500+ billion-som debts, court sanctions, and service disruptions. For market participants, this is a reminder of the importance of honoring commitments. For regulators, it underscores the necessity of tightening oversight—especially of foreign-capital entrants in critical infrastructure sectors.