Telegram Founder Pavel Durov Says French Probe Lacks Evidence

Pavel Durov, the founder of messaging platform Telegram, has criticized the ongoing criminal case against him, saying French investigators have failed to find any wrongdoing even a year after his ￰0￱ a Telegram post on Sunday, Durov described his detention in August 2024 as “unprecedented,” arguing that holding a tech executive accountable for user-generated content is “legally and logically absurd.” According to Durov, Telegram has consistently complied with legally binding requests from French authorities and maintained moderation practices in line with industry ￰1￱ this, he is still required to return to France every two weeks , with no appeal date ￰2￱ warned that the French government’s handling of the case has already inflicted “irreparable damage” to the country’s reputation as a free ￰3￱ Criticism of French Authorities Durov’s arrest drew sharp backlash from human rights groups, digital privacy advocates, and the cryptocurrency community, who accused French authorities of attempting to pressure Telegram into adopting stricter censorship ￰4￱ argue that targeting the company’s founder over platform misuse by individuals undermines both innovation and free ￰5￱ prosecutors accused Telegram of hosting harmful content and launched an inquiry into its moderation practices.

However, the charges have yet to materialize into substantial ￰6￱ President Emmanuel Macron defended the government’s stance, saying that freedoms must operate within a legal framework to ensure the protection of ￰7￱ rejected claims of political motivation in Durov’s arrest. However, the President’s statement faced a flood of criticism ￰8￱ Mumtaz, CEO of blockchain infrastructure firm Helius, questioned Macron directly, asking why the French leader himself was not held accountable for crime in France if the same logic applied to ￰9￱ Stands Firm on Privacy Durov has reiterated that Telegram will not compromise on user privacy by handing over encryption keys or building backdoors for ￰10￱ emphasized that the company would rather exit a jurisdiction entirely than submit to censorship ￰11￱ case has since become symbolic of broader debates over digital freedoms, state regulation of social platforms, and the responsibilities of tech leaders in moderating user ￰12￱ Durov, the legal battle is not just personal but also a test of how far governments can push against global platforms without eroding their own credibility on civil liberties.