Pavel Durov, Telegram’s founder, was interrogated by French investigative judges for over six hours on July 8 in Paris, marking his fourth questioning since formal charges were filed earlier this year. Despite the prolonged inquiry, French prosecutors have yet to present concrete evidence backing their accusations, and the investigation remains open, though restrictions on Durov have loosened considerably.
Durov arrived at the court around 10 a.m. local time. After the hearing, his lawyers-Christophe Ingrain, Robin Binsaa, and Guillaume Martin-told AFP that the prosecution has not substantiated the grounds for the case. Meanwhile, Durov’s defense has lodged complaints with both French and European judicial bodies.
Telegram’s press office pushed back hard, stating that following Durov’s detention, French authorities have only just begun ”properly directing their judicial requests” to the messenger. This stance aligns with Durov’s own remarks, who has repeatedly accused the police of procedural mishandling until August 2024, despite their ability to obtain necessary data lawfully.
On the surface, the day appeared routine. French media noted Durov showed up in black pants, a black hoodie, and black sneakers. But the case is far from everyday-a complex probe focusing on allegations related to organized crime and Telegram’s cooperation with law enforcement regarding illicit content.
No official timeline has been announced for concluding the investigation. In May, Paris prosecutor Laura Beko confirmed that investigative judges are still active and that Durov remains a subject in the ongoing case. The entrepreneur himself claims that the charges number over a dozen, with potential prison sentences reaching up to 10 years for each.
Pavel Durov’s Telegram investigation and interrogations in Paris
The saga began in late August 2024 when French authorities detained Durov at Le Bourget airport near Paris. They suspected Telegram of insufficiently responding to the spread of criminal content and poor collaboration with investigations. He was placed under judicial supervision and barred from leaving France.
Restrictions gradually eased: by June 2025, Durov was allowed to travel to Dubai. Then in November 2025, a French court lifted the travel ban and removed the requirement for him to regularly report to the police. This procedural easing marked a significant shift but did not close the case. France is known for lengthy investigations, especially when they involve international digital platforms.
The recent six-hour session shows the investigation is still very much alive, with prosecutors carefully gathering and verifying evidence rather than rushing to judgment. For Telegram, this case is sensitive not only because of its founder but also due to the platform’s global scale: the company reported over 1 billion monthly active users as of 2025. Debates over where neutral platform responsibility ends and content moderation obligations begin inevitably extend beyond France’s borders.
This makes Durov’s case significant for the wider messaging industry. Competitors like WhatsApp and Signal also face scrutiny over data access and moderation policies, particularly regarding end-to-end encryption. But France’s move to criminally pressure a founder personally is a rare and serious escalation in an age when tech giants usually bear the brunt of legal battles.
In April 2026, Durov publicly declared Telegram would rather cease operations in France than hand over data to what he called ”corrupt bureaucrats.” While such rhetoric plays well publicly, the legal dispute hinges on how Telegram responded to official requests, the timelines involved, and whether those responses complied with French and European law.
The next key milestone will come when French investigative judges either wrap up their inquiry or refer the case to trial. Until then, each summons serves as a reminder that the easing of restrictions does not eliminate legal risks. For Telegram, this episode tests how a communication platform serving over a billion users can navigate mounting government demands without compromising its stance on privacy and user sovereignty.