Telegram founder Pavel Durov has been allowed to leave France temporarily, but the preliminary charges against him raise significant questions for the crypto community.
Durov was part of an investigation containing allegations of negligence and complicity in crimes like narcotics trafficking, money laundering, child sexual exploitation and terrorism. He could face up to 20 years in prison if convicted.
More broadly, Durov’s case raises questions about developer responsibility for the cryptographic platforms and tools they create — a well-known issue in the cryptocurrency industry.
Is Durov responsible for what happens on Telegram?
The preliminary charges against Durov claimed he was responsible, at least in part, for the illicit activities allegedly enabled by the platform’s encryption and support for cryptocurrencies.
The argument will sound familiar to crypto industry observers, who have been following the case of Alexey Pertsev, the developer of cryptocurrency mixer service Tornado Cash. As with Durov, prosecutors allege that Pertsev is responsible for the illicit activities that took place on the platform, namely money laundering.
Pertsev was arrested in the Netherlands in 2022 and is currently out on bail while he waits for his trial to begin.
In both cases, members of the crypto community have recognized the possible implications to free speech and privacy, and come to support the executives.
Jose Fabrega, head of marketing at Ethereum-based blockchain Metis, called Durov’s arrest the “Tornado Cash case all over again.”
Natalia Latka, director of public policy and regulatory affairs at blockchain analysis firm Merkle Science, has previously told Cointelegraph that “Historically, software developers were seen as neutral creators of tools and platforms, responsible for their technical functionality but not for how those tools were used.”
However, she said this has been changing with the proliferation of decentralized tools that “challenge traditional regulatory frameworks.”
This puts decentralized platforms in a “tight spot,” crypto platform Onesafe wrote in a blog post on March 17. “This means knowing the legal frameworks governing their operations and engaging with regulatory bodies.”
It also called the Durov case a “pivotal moment” for the cryptocurrency industry and called on crypto firms to advocate for more “balanced regulations” and support advocacy groups.
Durov himself wrote on March 17 that Telegram has “not only met but exceeded its legal obligations.”
Implications for free speech
Observers and critics alike have raised concerns about Durov’s arrest — discussing what it means for free speech and whether the arrest could have been politically motivated.
Chris Pavlovski, the CEO of “alt-tech” video-sharing platform Rumble, said that it was the final straw for him and his company, which had previously clashed with French officials over censorship issues.
Gregory Alburov, an investigator for the Anti-Corruption Foundation of late Russian opposition politician Alexey Navalny, said the case “in addition to being unjust as hell (Durov obviously isn’t engaged in terrorism or weapons trafficking), is also a huge blow to freedom of speech.”
Durov’s previous clashes with regulators, particularly in 2018, when he refused to comply with an order from Russian telecoms regulator Roskomnadzor, have led many to believe that the charges were politically motivated.
While French President Mannuel Macron publicly stated that the case is not an attack on Durov, Dmitry Zair-Bek — a human rights lawyer and head of the human rights organization Department One — disagrees.
“Durov is essentially being targeted for his efforts to protect users’ privacy and, of course, for his refusal to cooperate with intelligence agencies,” he said.
Regardless of the motivations, the outcome of the case will have clear implications for future platforms. A conviction could intimidate platforms and executives into more intense moderation to the point of censorship, while a victory could embolden others to abandon obligations to regulators and public safety.
Durov’s leave in Dubai reportedly extends to April 7. The French prosecutor’s office has not made any public statements regarding the status of the case.
Rachel Reeves has hinted that taxes are likely to be raised this autumn after a major U-turn on the government’s controversial welfare bill.
Sir Keir Starmer’s Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill passed through the House of Commons on Tuesday after multiple concessions and threats of a major rebellion.
MPs ended up voting for only one part of the plan: a cut to universal credit (UC) sickness benefits for new claimants from £97 a week to £50 from 2026/7.
Initially aimed at saving £5.5bn, it now leaves the government with an estimated £5.5bn black hole – close to breaching Ms Reeves’s fiscal rules set out last year.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
6:36
Rachel Reeves’s fiscal dilemma
In an interview with The Guardian, the chancellor did not rule out tax rises later in the year, saying there were “costs” to watering down the welfare bill.
“I’m not going to [rule out tax rises], because it would be irresponsible for a chancellor to do that,” Ms Reeves told the outlet.
More on Rachel Reeves
Related Topics:
“We took the decisions last year to draw a line under unfunded commitments and economic mismanagement.
“So we’ll never have to do something like that again. But there are costs to what happened.”
Meanwhile, The Times reported that, ahead of the Commons vote on the welfare bill, Ms Reeves told cabinet ministers the decision to offer concessions would mean taxes would have to be raised.
The outlet reported that the chancellor said the tax rises would be smaller than those announced in the 2024 budget, but that she is expected to have to raise tens of billions more.
Sir Keir did not explicitly say that she would, and Ms Badenoch interjected to say: “How awful for the chancellor that he couldn’t confirm that she would stay in place.”
In her first comments after the incident, Ms Reeves said she was having a “tough day” before adding: “People saw I was upset, but that was yesterday.
“Today’s a new day and I’m just cracking on with the job.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
“In PMQs, it is bang, bang, bang,” he said. “That’s what it was yesterday.
“And therefore, I was probably the last to appreciate anything else going on in the chamber, and that’s just a straightforward human explanation, common sense explanation.”