Telegram tycoon Pavel Durov has been released from police custody ahead of a court appearance after four days of questioning over allegations that his platform is being used for illegal activities.
The 39-year-old billionaire is set to appear in front of a judge this afternoon to face possible charges of failing to curb extremist and illegal content on the popular messaging app following his arrest at the weekend.
The Russian-born tech boss was detained on Saturday at Le Bourget airport outside Paris as part of a judicial inquiry opened last month involving 12 alleged criminal violations.
The Paris prosecutor’s office said: ‘An investigating judge has ended Pavel Durov’s police custody and will have him brought to court for a first appearance and a possible indictment.’
Other allegations against Durov, who is a French citizen, include that his platform is being used for child sexual abuse material and drug trafficking, fraud and abetting organised crime transactions, and that Telegram refused to share information or documents with investigators when required by law.
An investigating magistrate will decide whether to press charges against Durov, and the judiciary would then rule on whether he will be remanded in custody or allowed to go free, possibly under judicial control with restrictions on his movements.
Two police cars with flashing blue lights cars sped out of the anti-fraud office outside Paris this afternoon, video shows, with reports suggesting Durov might be travelling in one.
The Telegram founder had been in custody for 96 hours – the maximum amount of time someone can be held under French law before being charged.
In a rare intervention by a French leader into judicial matters, President Macron on Monday said the decision to bring charges against Durov was ‘in no way political’.
His detention sparked a row between Paris and Moscow, which demanded consular access to its former citizen, according to Russian media.
The Kremlin said on Tuesday that the accusations by France against Durov were ‘very serious’ and warned they would be viewed in Russia as an attempt to restrict freedom of communication unless they were backed up with significant evidence.
Comments