Durov said that he faces up to 10 years in prison in France
Pavel Durov, the founder of the Telegram messaging app, has stated that he faces more than a dozen charges in France, each carrying a potential sentence of up to 10 years in prison. In his view, the French authorities are using criminal cases to exert pressure on freedom of speech and user privacy.
Durov wrote about this on his Telegram page.
Durov made this statement following the U.S. Department of Justice’s decision to deny France’s request for assistance in investigating Elon Musk’s social media platform X.
“In France, I am under a similar investigation: over a dozen charges, each carrying a potential sentence of up to 10 years in prison. I am proud to stand alongside Elon Musk and other targets of Macron’s campaign against digital rights,” Durov wrote.
The French prosecutor’s office claims to act independently. According to Durov, prosecutors are subject to government control regarding hiring, firing, and career advancement. A similar dependency exists within the police, which often provides investigating judges with misleading reports. Therefore, he believes the government is fabricating the case.
Is it possible to block Telegram in Ukraine
The loss of independence for any messaging app raises questions about the safety of its use. That is why proposals to block Telegram in particular periodically arise in Ukraine, and experts disagree on the importance of preserving it.
Today, experts agree that blocking Telegram is not feasible from a technical and political standpoint. Instead, the main challenge lies in the state and society finding their own way to combat hostile traps without copying the methods of the Russian Federation.
“I don’t think there is an immediate threat of Telegram being shut down right now. There are people in power who use Telegram for their own interests. I don’t see a subject for debate. There is a debate, but there won’t be a shutdown. Ukrainian society is diverse. It is not uniform. And within society, there are both opponents and supporters of banning Telegram,” political analyst Volodymyr Fesenko said in a comment to UA.News.
At the same time, according to Fesenko, sooner or later Telegram will cease to be a popular messenger: “There’s no need to imagine that Telegram is the only or fastest source. Viber once reigned supreme; today it is fading into the past. Telegram will also fade away over time, without any forced bans.”
Mykhailo Bochevary, a lawyer with the Barristers law firm, notes that for a long time, society viewed Telegram as a “safe zone.” But today, the law allows not only for fining channel owners but also for issuing court orders to completely block their resources.
“Violations in the area of content are classified under several articles of the Code of Administrative Offenses: spreading false rumors (Art. 1731), violations of personal data legislation (Arts. 188–39), violation of intellectual property rights (Art. 512), and violation of legislation on information, advertising, and the media (Art. 2123). One of the most common grounds for administrative liability is the dissemination of false rumors. “If a channel publishes false or defamatory information about a person, this may fall under Article 1731 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. In practice, courts treat even the administrators of anonymous channels as public disseminators of information and may impose fines,” the expert comments.
According to the lawyer, despite the absence of a Telegram office in Ukraine, the state has already learned to restrict access to dangerous resources. One of the most well-known examples is the case against a network of channels controlled by Russian intelligence agencies. Back in February 2023, a court banned popular channels in Ukraine under the names “Resident,” “Legitimate,” “Cartel,” and “Gossip,” ordering internet providers to block access to them. The SBU proved that these resources were engaged in subversive activities on behalf of the Russian Federation.
“We shouldn’t forget about Telegram’s own mechanisms either. The company regularly responds to requests regarding channels that violate the law or pose a threat. If it involves blackmail, bullying, pornography, fake news, or military disinformation, the channel administrator or content may be removed. And although Telegram is a private company, it is increasingly cooperating with official authorities in wartime conditions,” adds Mykhailo Bochevary.
Telecommunications expert Oleksandr Glushchenko says that under current conditions, a total and rapid ban on a global service—as seen in political statements—is impossible.
“In global practice, there are several scenarios for internet control. The first is the North Korean model. In this model, the network is effectively local (an intranet), and only a select few have access to the outside world. The second is the Chinese model. China has chosen to create its own isolated ecosystem. Thanks to powerful local resources, they have completely captured users’ attention, while external traffic is strictly filtered by the ‘Great Firewall of China.’ Most residents are fine with this. They have grown accustomed to domestic services and simply do not know what is happening beyond the perimeter,” notes Glushchenko.
There is also a third option—the Russian-Iranian model. Here, the industry was not regulated from the very beginning, but rather as it developed. Russia took a unique path after failing to block Telegram eight years ago. For mobile operators, they introduced “whitelists.” When mobile internet is turned off, access remains only to a limited list of resources, while the rest simply do not exist. For wired providers, they developed their own domain name registry.
“Usually, when you enter a website’s name, the DNS server provides its IP address. Hundreds of popular domains simply aren’t in the Russian registry. If you try to access YouTube.com in Russia without a VPN, the system will respond that such a resource doesn’t exist,” Glushchenko explains.
Overall, he believes the focus should not be on bans, but on digital hygiene. Everyone should be aware of the risks and use basic security tools. These include two-factor authentication and a cloud-based password manager. It involves understanding how digital platforms work and knowing which data can be trusted and which cannot.
“This is basic digital hygiene and a zero-trust approach to the digital world, which makes it impossible to send sensitive information, documents, or personal data via Telegram itself, and requires verifying all suspicious links or offers—most of which are phishing attempts. These basic measures can stop most threats,” comments Oleksandr.
