Monday, September 5, 2016

campaign accounts: why prosecutors seeking transfer of Nicolas Sarkozy in court – The World

 Nicolas Sarkozy on August 24 in  Boulogne-Billancourt.

the Paris prosecutor wants the former head of state Nicolas Sarkozy to be tried in correctional for his role in the affair Bygmalion and thirteen indicted, including several senior officials of the former UMP. Those responsible for the campaign of former head of state for the 2012 presidential election are accused of setting up a system of false invoices with some of their providers to mask considerably exceeded campaign spending.

in an indictment signed on August 30 and that Le Monde has knowledge, the Crown says that the responsibility of the former head of state is “fully committed the illegal campaign finance chief since it was shown that he had given, knowingly, instructions in favor of increased spending, disregarding contrary recommendations of the auditors’ .

the former president has therefore not convinced prosecutors. “In terms of this single crime [illegal financing of election campaign], the applicant’s denials were the only true exculpatory evidence” Note the indictment. The former president had been indicted under this head in February.

He had enjoyed the status of assisted witness of Heads of forgery, fraud and breach of trust, the investigation had not not demonstrate that he gave the order to conceal some of his campaign expenses or was informed of false accounting. If the floor does not require his return to court for these reasons for lack of evidence, the indictment states that “Given his training and his vast experience in election campaign, it was logical to consider that his only knowledge of the spending limit is exceeded involved the knowledge of the use of fraudulent means inherent in such concealment “. a ‘conviction was not sufficiently established on the probationary plan” adds the Crown .

“Principal give orders’

The fact is that the prosecution considered in light of investigations conducted by investigating judges since 2014 that “Nicolas Sarkozy had exercised unquestioned authority on multiple campaign material aspects” . The denials of former President before the judges were therefore not convinced the prosecutor, who believes that “was the primary beneficiary and the main principal of events, since he was the final decision maker their essential elements “.

This is especially a note dated March 7, 2012 written by one of the auditors and addressed to William Lambert, director of the campaign of Nicolas Sarkozy, motivated requisitions. This alerted the expenses already incurred by asking limit. But before the magistrates, Lambert claimed he had brought the note to the attention of Nicolas Sarkozy. “I have no recollection of this note “, affirmed it at first, before admitting later that it was “plausible” .

“true says the prosecutor, Nicolas Sarkozy held at the time of the facts of the functions that forbade it to be regularly informed in detail of budgetary issues. However, his eminent political responsibilities could erase those the candidate he was also and did therefore not allowed to refrain from effectively monitor spending. ”

Candidate Responsibility

If Mr. Sarkozy has repeatedly stated during the investigation that he had delegate to others anything that fell expenditure monitoring, the prosecution recalled that “did not have the right because the applicable penal text is the only one since it is the candidate” .

for the floor, so “knowingly knowing as early as mid-March that the spending cap was exceeded on the commitments made on that date “ that the candidate Sarkozy has allowed the organization of the 44 meetings which took place after the famous note of March 7. It is now up to the magistrates to follow or not these submissions.

In a statement sent to AFP, the lawyer Nicolas Sarkozy, Thierry Herzog, said it was “ a new crude political maneuver that will not withstand more than others to examine the facts “ by evoking a ” case where the two-year investigation demonstrated its total lack of involvement in allegedly criminal facts “.


No comments:

Post a Comment