GOAT Talk: Why the Police Pursue Telegram

GOAT Talk: Why the Police Pursue Telegram

Almost on the second anniversary of Pavel Durov's arrest in France, the Bitcoin Foundation published the equivalent of a college freshman's essay about law enforcement's unjust behavior. The victim was not a rando guzzling cheap wine near the Porte de Clignancourt metro stop in the 18th arrondissement in Paris. The dapper fellow nabbed in August 2024 at the Paris–Le Bourget Airport. A team from the J3 unit of the French judiciary handcuffed Durov, the self-proclaimed GOAT or greatest of all time of Russian innovators. His ballerina girl friend remained on the tarmac in the rain. The arrest made international headlines.

"Pavel Durov Finally Reveals Why Telegram Was Targeted After His Paris Arrest" is an article based on an edited interview with the founder of Telegram. Click here for the source document In my team's research for our 2025 monograph "The Telegram Labyrinth," we had abundant information about why Durov was jailed, confined to France, and subjected to regular interactions with French officials.

Madame Brousse is credited with the take down of Encrochat, a messaging system used by criminals in Europe. Once that matter was nailed, she turned her attention to the GOAT. Durov had a history of lecturing those who would listen about the evils of government interference in personal affairs and his company. Madame Brousse remained unmoved by the GOAT's arguments. In one bold stroke, she tethered Pavel Durov after more than a decade of Telegram's and his refusal to respond to legal requests for information related to serious online crimes. With a number of serious charges leveled at him, no high-priced French attorney is needed to conclude that Durov is in trouble, big trouble. He is a French citizen and he is monitored. His arrest has dealt a serious blow to Telegram: The Madame Brousse's direct action seems to have encouraged authorities in Australia and Russia to file charges against him.

What does the article present about Durov's analysis of his arrest? Let's take a look at a handful of points my team and I found interesting.

Non-Cooperation with Authorities

The Bitcoin Foundation's article reports:

The Telegram founder explained that governments first ask for concessions. When they are refused, criticism of the company increases, paving the way for legal action. This theory explains why Telegram was targeted at the institutional level.

Our view of this framing of the French police action is that it is a result of government's refusing to respect individual privacy. Telegram's goal is to provide a safe place for self-expression. Durov's philosophy is similar to that of Elon Musk's. As a point of fact, Madame Brousse has summoned Musk to her offices, and he refused. Would the J3 unit arrest Musk if he were to visit France?

Telegram's Policies Have Changed

Prior to his arrest, Durov and Telegram slow walked requests for information. Both formal and informal inquiries were either ignored or lost. In the 24 months following the arrest, Telegram has stepped up its cooperation with government authorities.

The article asserts:

After the Paris arrest, the company made it clear that it complied with all legal requests for information about users, following the terms outlined in its privacy policy. According to Pavel Durov, French authorities started to respect the appropriate legal framework for accessing Telegram data. At the same time, critics argue that the modifications undermine Telegram’s commitment to user privacy.

My team's view is that Madame Brousse's methods have produced some results without pushing the matter into court. Kaminski & Sons, Durov's attorneys in Paris, have explained how the French judicial process works and what the possible penalties are for the serious online criminal charges attached to the GOAT. Let's assume that Durov continues to demonstrate that he can alter Telegram's policies and provide legally-requested information, this question arises, "Why should Madame Brousse and her JUNALCO unit move more quickly?"

What Happens When Durov Is Convicted?

Based on how the J3 unit handled the Encrophone case, Durov's "cooperation" may not be enough. Therefore, my team and I expect that Durov will be headed to trial. Kaminski's attorneys will replay the familiar Durov script that says, "We are a platform. We cannot be responsible for the users' behavior." With Encrophone as a benchmark, Madame Brousse is unlikely to find that argument substantial enough to let Durov walk free. He could face years in a French prison like the suicide-generating Fleury facility or one of the less pleasant incarceration options available to the judiciary; for example, at the French space facility in French Guiana.

The Bitcoin Foundation's article dances around the jail time and financial penalties, writing:

For now, the investigation is a nuisance for both Telegram and Pavel Durov, who have to deal with additional scrutiny. However, if the case proceeds to trial, the evidence may determine whether the company and its founder will be held criminally liable for facilitating organized crime.

Our Observations

In a lunch time conversation about this soft-touch write upon about a Web3 luminary, my team and I generated some preliminary observations.

1. The Bitcoin Foundation wants to avoid suggesting that the crypto-centric Telegram and its owner are operating an enterprise that permits and facilitates serious online crime. Examples range from stealer bots to financial magicians like the recently-banned KuGroup (now Kucoin) organization. Some Web3 enthusiasts need Telegram because there is not an exact duplicate of the organization and its services available elsewhere.
2. Durov's philosophy, his handling of legitimate requests from law enforcement for more than a decade, and his cross-jurisdictional set up suggest that he will go to trial. If Madame Brousse operates as she did with Encrochat, Telegram and Durov could be taken offline: Durov in jail and Telegram shut down.
3. The arrest has forced some Web3 entrepreneurs to start thinking about life with a disabled or neutered Telegram or the possibility that Telegram is taken offline. What comes next? The criminals alleged to use Telegram for money laundering and other serious online crimes need a Telegram-type service.

The Bitcoin Foundation's article tries to present a kid-glove instead of an iron fist with regard to Durov's behaviors. The reality appears to be different. The GOAT is tethered. Options are limited.

Stephen E Arnold, September 1, 2026