Kick’s Jean Pormanove Case Has Convictions—But Not for His Death

Nearly a year after Raphaël Graven, known online as Jean Pormanove, died during a Kick livestream on August 18, 2025, the case has produced its first convictions. Owen Cenazandotti and Safine Hamadi were found guilty over violence and humiliation in broadcasts involving Graven and other participants—but they were not prosecuted for causing his death.

That distinction is the central update. The inquiry into Graven’s death found no evidence of third-party involvement and was closed in February 2026, while a separate investigation into Kick’s conduct and financial relationship with the channel remained active after the August convictions.

What the August 2026 judgment established

The Nice criminal court convicted Cenazandotti, known as Naruto, and Hamadi, known as Safine, on August 5, 2026. An account of the judgment by Le Monde’s Nice correspondent says Cenazandotti received a two-year suspended prison sentence, a €15,000 fine and a six-month prohibition on posting online; Hamadi received an 18-month suspended sentence, a €5,000 fine and the same posting ban.

The charges concerned group violence, abuse of weakness, distribution of violent footage and incitement to hatred or violence. The proceedings covered material involving Graven, an adult under guardianship known as Coudoux, and minors; they were not a homicide trial.

That legal boundary matters because disturbing content can support convictions even when it is not established as the medical cause of a later death. Graven’s autopsy did not identify injuries attributable to another person as the cause of death, and the two streamers were not charged with manslaughter. The ruling therefore confirms criminal responsibility for conduct shown in the broadcasts without establishing that Cenazandotti or Hamadi killed him.

The donation claim involving Ed Craven needs careful wording

Kick co-founder Ed Craven was publicly connected to the channel through its supporter ranking. In August 2025, ABC News reported the on-platform listing showed Craven as the channel’s fifth-highest supporter, with 150 gifted subscriptions over the channel’s lifetime.

That is narrower than saying a Kick executive financed particular acts of violence. Gifted subscriptions support a channel and may improve its revenue or visibility, but the historical leaderboard alone does not show when each subscription was purchased, which segment was live at the time, or whether the purchaser requested a particular act. The August 2026 trial report did not turn the ranking into a finding that Craven directed or paid for the conduct covered by the convictions.

The defensible conclusion is that a founder of the hosting platform appeared prominently in the channel’s recorded support system. It is a significant governance question because senior figures can lend money and legitimacy to creators, but it should not be presented as proof of responsibility for Graven’s death.

The platform question is still separate from the streamers’ convictions

Kick’s potential responsibility is being examined through a different track. The continuing investigation concerns what the company knew, how it responded to misconduct, whether it had financial relationships with the channel’s operators, and whether its services complied with French and European requirements. An investigation is not a conviction, and the individual sentences from Nice do not resolve those corporate questions.

The jurisdictional structure also complicates enforcement. In an official August 2025 statement, French regulator Arcom said Kick was subject to the EU Digital Services Act despite remaining below the threshold for designation as a very large online platform. Arcom contacted Kick’s legal representative and the Maltese regulator for details about French-language moderation, reports concerning the Jeanpormanove channel and measures taken against potentially illegal material.

This means the outstanding issue is broader than whether Kick removed one account after the death. Investigators and regulators must examine the platform’s reporting channels, moderation records, knowledge of repeated conduct and economic connections to the creators. Those questions require evidence from company records and communications rather than inferences from the livestream alone.

Why the case matters to the creator economy

The broadcasts exposed a dangerous alignment between audience incentives and escalating conduct. Subscriptions, gifts and attention can reward creators immediately, while moderation and legal intervention may arrive only after material has circulated for months. Calling violence staged or consensual does not automatically remove legal risk when vulnerable people, minors or incitement are involved.

The Nice judgment also rejects a common defense of boundary-pushing livestreams: that audience demand converts harmful treatment into harmless entertainment. The court punished the recorded conduct even though some participants had previously described scenes as jokes or voluntary performances. For creators and platforms, consent claims are therefore not a substitute for evaluating vulnerability, bodily harm and the legality of what is broadcast.

The current record supports two conclusions at once. Cenazandotti and Hamadi were convicted for violent and humiliating content, but not for causing Graven’s death. Kick, meanwhile, continues to face a distinct examination of its moderation and financial role; the historical listing of Craven among the channel’s leading supporters is relevant to that scrutiny, but it is not itself a verdict.

Also read:

• Eric Adams Has Been Indicted, But His Crappy Subway Robot Will Be "Redeployed"
• Dark Social Hides in Direct Traffic—but Direct Is Not Proof
• Jason Allen Says His AI Art Was Copied—But His Copyright Case Is Still Pending