For the Crown this trial is a success based on a sham

The ex-dirigeants of the Afer trial ended yesterday at the correctional tribunal of Paris, with the indictment of the Prosecutor and the defence pleadings. A final day in which all the ambivalence of this record complex will have been updated the. Once, the courtroom has been the theatre of radically different interpretations of the facts in respect of which Gérard Athias and André Le Saux, respectively former Chairman and Treasurer of the association, are prosecuted for "abuse of confidence", and "deception", and Gérard Athias alone for "misleading advertising". The alleged embezzlement, obtained through a secret agreement signed on 17 December 1986, with the insurer bee life (now Aviva), had encrypted at trial to EUR 130 million (of which 90 million of principal) over the period 1987-1992. The judgment has been reserved last night, is expected for July 4.

For the Crown, this trial is a "success based on a sham". In a very harsh indictment of two hours, Prosecutor Marie - Aimée Gaspari found that the former leaders have "used a faultless appearance" to mount a fraudulent system, "to qualify as inventors and wanted to draw fruit", leaving "a utilitarian view of the association and the profitability of the contract", and "to be at the centre of a conflict of interest" by playing on their "multiple hats." The implementation of the offending incentive system is regarded as "premeditated" and its counterpart is clear: "the Organization of the loss of independence of the association. Paying the "price of loyalty and the sustainability", the insurer would have therefore agreed to make a "disguised rebate", on the entry fee paid by the members.

Encrypt the harm

The Attorney Marie-Aimée Gaspari requested that Gérard Athias and André Le Saux are sentenced to a three-year suspended prison sentence and 375,000 euros fine. It also requested the confiscation of assets derived from the alleged amounts diverted, or approximately 21 million, reinvested today in SCI Elm. A 15-month conditional sentence and a fine of 10,000 euros were required against Marc Garnier, former President of bee life, accused of "complicity of breach of trust".

For the defence, it is no more or less that of the "trial success and success", and the impact of a "quarrel of brokers" jealous of not having right to their share of the cake. Methodically, different defence counsel have thus sought to demonstrate that the tribunal would do wrong in many ways. Mr. Metzner, the lawyer of Marc Garnier, was first recalled that "the most active civil parties are professional", and that many have responded "not on the principle of compensation former leaders, but the amount", considered exorbitant. Insisting on the fact that the civil parties had difficulty to quantify the harm suffered ("Les Echos" of yesterday), he did not hesitate to speak of "Unreal prejudice" and recalled that "brokers do not pay entry fee" (these are the members who pay). Point that also stressed Me Dray, counsel for Gérard Athias and André Le Saux. Evidence in support, the latter especially sought to demonstrate that there was no diversion of mandate on the part of customers, for the good and simple reason that statutorily, their mandate was to "defend the social savings". Nowhere was written, he said, they had to defend the independence and transparency of the association, nor that they were committed to lowering costs of loading already included among the lowest in the market. The defence also stressed the fact that the confidentiality clause included in the famous Protocol of 1986 did nothing illegal and that she had been "requested by the insurer. On the amendment of the clause of termination occurred in December 1988, "it did not lose the independence Association", provides counsel. Considering, on the merits, the tars began to actually prosper from 1987, defence believes that the strengthening of its relationship with Aviva agreement of exclusivity in support was necessary "to enable him to rise in power". Refuting the concealment as mental element of the trial, she did not hesitate, in conclusion, to remind that the facts could be considered as prescribed.