Durov was arrested at Le Bourget airport on the outskirts of Paris and taken into police custody Saturday at 8 p.m., according to a press release from the Paris prosecutor’s office.
His arrest comes as part of a judicial investigation opened July 8 into an unnamed individual related to charges of “complicity” with illegal transactions, possession and distribution of child pornography, possession and sale of narcotics, and organized fraud, among other charges.
Durov and his brother, Nikolai Durov, founded Telegram in 2013. It continues to be a popular messaging service, especially regarding the Russia-Ukraine war.
Telegram said in a statement that it adheres to the European Union’s laws, and its moderation is “within industry standards and constantly improving.”
“It is absurd to claim that a platform or its owner are responsible for abuse of that platform,” Telegram said. “Almost a billion users globally use Telegram as means of communication and as a source of vital information. We’re awaiting a prompt resolution of this situation. Telegram is with you all.”
Some have sought to tie the arrest to the issue of freedom of speech. Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. posted on X that “the need to protect free speech has never been more urgent.”
Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski wrote on X that France had “crossed a red line by arresting Telegram’s CEO, Pavel Durov, reportedly for not censoring speech.” Rumble is a YouTube-like platform popular among conservatives.
Tech billionaire Elon Musk, who owns X, also weighed in on the arrest, writing “FreePavel” in a post on the platform.
French President Emmanuel Macron on Monday addressed Durov’s arrest in a statement posted to X, emphasizing that France is “deeply committed to freedom of expression and communication, to innovation, and to the spirit of entrepreneurship.” He also wrote that the arrest of Durov was not political.
“It is up to the judiciary, in full independence, to enforce the law,” he said. “The arrest of the president of Telegram on French soil took place as part of an ongoing judicial investigation. It is in no way a political decision. It is up to the judges to rule on the matter.”
The Hill’s Lauren Sforza has more here.
