Paul Dorov, the founder of the telegram, called the French current case legally and logically

The founder of the telegram messenger billionaire Paul Dorov criticized French officials on Sunday, August 6, for what he called “baseless criminal investigations”; Research that has been involved in judicial processes for more than a year.

Dorov, who was temporarily allowed to leave France and travel to Dubai in March, is faced with several charges of claiming the telegram’s role in facilitating organized crimes. In a statement on Sunday, he emphasized that it could create a dangerous record of being responsible for a CEO for the behavior of users of a global messenger platform.

According to Dorov, French police committed “wrong” to submit access to users’ data; Because it had not taken the right legal process. He said his company has always responded to all legal binding requests and his supervisory practices are in accordance with the standards of the messaging industry. Dorov added that he is still obliged to return to France every five days, and no history has yet been set for appeal.

He said about this and the case file against the telegram:

Unfortunately, the only result of my arrest so far has been a heavy blow to France as a free country.

The Dorov case represents an increase in tensions between law enforcement and technology platforms over online content; Especially when governments around the world have intensified their oversight of social media and messenger services. This is not the first time that Dorov has criticized French officials.

In September, in response to his legal problems in France, he criticized officials for bypassing the official EU channels and his direct questioning. He is responsible for knowing a CEO on the crime of users “an incorrect approach”; Especially given that this is based on old laws. Duvov has defended the telegram efforts to monitor the daily elimination of harmful content and cooperation with NGOs and reiterated its commitment to nearly one billion users of the platform. As the case continues, the question continues to ask whether legal conflicts will affect telegram activities or the value of its initiatives.