Pavel Durov, founder and CEO of the Telegram messaging platform, was arrested in France on August 25 at Paris–Le Bourget Airport.
The arrest stems from allegations that Telegram has been used for illegal activities such as drug trafficking, organized fraud, and the distribution of child pornography.
French authorities argue that Telegram failed to adequately combat criminal activity and did not respond to inquiries regarding these issues.
related reading:French President Macron denies arresting Telegram founder Pavel Durov for political reasons, after the US government repeatedly wanted to take over Telegram
Durov responds to French accusations
In response, Durov expressed surprise at the French authorities' actions. He clarified that his company is not difficult to reach, pointing out that Telegram has a representative in the EU who handles requests from law enforcement.
Durov also noted that French authorities had multiple ways to contact him, including through the French consulate in Dubai, which he visits regularly.
related reading:Telegram founder Pavel Durov has been released after paying a 5 million euro bail, but cannot leave France until the official investigation is completed
Durov denies the point of inaction against telegram crimes
Durov rejected the idea that Telegram is a haven for criminals. He stated that Telegram removes millions of harmful posts and channels daily, though he acknowledged that the platform's rapid growth to 950 million users has made it easier for criminals to exploit it.
Durov emphasized his commitment to improving the platform's security measures.
Durov highlighted Telegram's willingness to leave markets that conflict with its principles. He cited past instances where Telegram was banned in Russia and Iran after refusing to comply with government demands that went against the company's values.
He explained that Telegram prioritizes its principles over financial gain.
Durov criticised the French government's approach, arguing that holding a CEO criminally accountable for the actions of third parties on a platform is misguided.
He warned that such legal precedents could stifle innovation, as potential innovators may fear being held responsible for misuse of their creations.