Pavel Durov was interrogated in Dubai for two days

by in Cryptocurrency News

Pavel Durov

It was supposed that Pavel Durov is going to be interrogated in Dubai on January 7 and 8, and it actually happened. The transcript of the interrogation follows from the document in which Durov explains to the lawyers of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) how much money he spent on Telegram and TON, why he decided to conduct an ICO, how much he spent on equipment and why he doesn't examine Gram's security.

The interrogation of Pavel Durov lasted for two days in Dubai, where Durov lives for several years. The questioning was attended by the client’s lawyer, Scadden lawyer Alexander C. Drylewski and prosecution lawyer George Tenreiro. It lasted from 11:20 a.m. to 10 p.m. on January 7, and from about 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. the next day, with short lunch breaks.

It is apparent from the documents that the questioning was to find out what for and how the founder of Telegram was spending money. Questions about this topic have been asked many times. Also, the lawyers tried to understand why Pavel Durov necessitated $ 1.7 billion, to prove that the TON team realized that it was working with unregistered securities and not just cryptocurrency.

Trending: Genesis hard fork took place in the Bitcoin SV network

Durov’s position during the interrogation was that Gram is not a security, but digital currency and a large number of investors were needed to finance the purchase of equipment, as well as to ensure the stability of the future blockchain platform. The TON team, according to him, needed to attract a sufficient number of investors, so when the blockchain was launched, at least some of them could become the so-called validators. For the system to work without failures, there had to be at least two dozen of them, he said.

On January 15, the SEC also released new data that, according to the regulator, proves that Gram should be considered securities that were issued bypassing the due process. The document provides evidence that the issue of the Gram token and its offer to investors were consistent with the practice of issuing securities, and even company employees called the token security in official correspondence.

Both Telegram and the SEC filed applications for summary proceedings with the court. It may indicate that both parties believe that they have gathered enough evidence for the decision to be made in their favor.