A pair of scales of justice symbolizes the judge’s role in the face of online excesses. In Nice, the trial raises the question of the boundary between online spectacle, livestream money, and punishable violence. Credits: CC0 Public Domain photo via Renaissance Numérique.
Owen Cenazandotti, alias Naruto, and Safine Hamadi, known as Safine, appear this Monday, July 6, before the Nice Criminal Court. The two streamers are on trial in the Jean Pormanove case for alleged online violence. The charges also include broadcasting violent images and abuse of weakness. The trial does not directly concern the death of Raphaël Graven, which occurred in August 2025.
Why Naruto and Safine Are on Trial
The case opened in Nice first concerns acts that predate or are linked to the livestreams broadcast from a location in Contes, near Nice. In a statement reproduced in full by Les Petites Affiches, Public Prosecutor Damien Martinelli detailed the charges retained. They include group violence without ITT against Raphaël Graven. They also target Stéphane G., nicknamed Coudoux, as a vulnerable person. The prosecutor also cites the dissemination of recorded images of violence. It also retains incitement to hatred or violence linked to disability or sexual orientation. Added to that are violence against minors, abuse of weakness, and insults.
The initial investigation was opened on December 16, 2024, after Mediapart published information about videos streamed on Kick. The Nice prosecutor then handed the investigation to the local judicial police. A search of the Contes filming location followed on January 8, 2025, with the seizure of computer and audiovisual equipment.
At this stage, Naruto and Safine remain defendants. The alleged facts must be examined by the court. The presumption of innocence applies until any final conviction.
A Trial Separate From Jean Pormanove’s Death
This distinction is essential in this highly publicized case. The Naruto Safine trial is not about direct responsibility for the death of Jean Pormanove. Raphaël Graven, 46, died on August 18, 2025, during a livestream in Contes. According to the Nice prosecutor, the autopsy did not establish a traumatic cause of death. It also did not establish any link to the intervention of a third party.
The additional analyses cited by the prosecutor instead pointed to impaired and unstable cardiovascular function. They also mention hyperthyroidism and other medical conditions. This conclusion does not end public debate about the conditions of the livestreams. However, it does require distinguishing the death from the criminal proceedings being examined in Nice.
In its article today, Le HuffPost with AFP recalls the announced time of the hearing. It was due to open at 1:30 p.m. before the Nice Criminal Court. AFP also says the two men must answer for acts involving Raphaël Graven and two other people. Those acts concern the months before the death.
Violence, Images, and Vulnerability at the Heart of the Case
The judicial core of the case comes down to a specific question. Can scenes presented as scripted, consensual, or paid for constitute offenses? The answer depends in particular on the vulnerability of the people filmed and on any economic or social relationship of dependency.
The prosecutor says it is relying on the analysis of the seized recordings. It sees scenes that could amount to violence against minors, violence against a vulnerable person, and discriminatory humiliation. Raphaël Graven or Stéphane G. would be among those targeted. For the court, the issue will be less about replaying these sequences than about assessing their criminal qualification. It will also have to examine the broadcasting context and the possible vulnerability of the people filmed.
The two defendants have already described part of the scenes as staged. The prosecutor’s statement reports that Safine H. described himself as the channel’s host, while Owen C. allegedly handled the technical side and the broadcast. The same text indicates that Safine H. acknowledged, with hindsight, the violence and humiliation attached to certain sequences, while Owen C. disputed the violent or humiliating nature of several scenes while acknowledging some insulting remarks.
Livestream Money, Another Issue in the Hearing
The Jean Pormanove case goes beyond the mere account of violent online acts because it involves the monetization of that content. According to the Nice prosecutor, the financial flows examined revealed significant amounts. They would be linked to the activity of the channel and its key figures.
Between 2021 and 2025, Raphaël Graven is said to have received nearly 140,000 euros through a company created in 2020. Around 125,000 euros would also have passed through his personal accounts from platforms and companies, again according to the prosecutor. Over the same broader period, Owen C. is said to have received nearly 460,000 euros between 2022 and 2025. Safine H. would have received more than 200,000 euros between 2021 and 2025.
These figures explain why the hearing matters beyond the courtroom. It must clarify the boundary between paid entertainment, claimed consent, and possible exploitation of vulnerable situations. The case also raises the issue of platform responsibility when violent or humiliating content generates audience and revenue.
Kick, a Parallel Proceeding Not to Be Confused
The Kick platform is part of the backdrop to the case, but it is not the same as the Nice trial. The Nice prosecutor said the anti-cybercrime office was also seized by the Paris prosecutor’s office. This separate investigation concerns the platform. Le HuffPost with AFP reports that it is notably seeking to determine Kick’s role in streamers’ pay. It is also examining the obstacles put in place to curb abuses after Raphaël Graven’s death.
For readers, the distinction matters. In Nice, the court is examining the facts alleged against two defendants and the criminal classification of scenes broadcast online. In Paris, the investigation concerns the platform and its response to reported content. The two tracks stem from the same public shock, but they do not have the same judicial focus.
The Family Is Asking for a Different Judicial Approach
One new element today could affect the opening of the hearing. According to Libération, Lionel Graven, Raphaël Graven’s brother, intends to join the case as a civil party. The newspaper reports that his lawyers were to request a postponement and the opening of a judicial investigation. This move by relatives does not prejudge either the court’s decision or the prosecutor’s next steps.
At the time of writing, no reliable decision on a possible postponement had been confirmed in the sources consulted. The exact course of the hearing is also still to be documented. The article must therefore remain cautious: the trial is opening in a shifting judicial context. On the other hand, the charges retained are established by the available judicial sources. The timeline of the Nice investigation and the distinction from Jean Pormanove’s death are too.
This Monday, the Nice court must therefore rule on more than a case of filmed violence. It must say how criminal law deals with livestreams where humiliation, money, vulnerability, and staging come together. The boundary between consensual spectacle and punishable harm is at the heart of the hearing.