François Fillon and his wife will be fixed on appeal
In the first case, the former French prime minister was sentenced to five years in prison, two of which were charged with embezzlement of public funds, complicity and misappropriation of corporate assets.
Will they be condemned again? The Paris Court of Appeals on Monday afternoon ruled on the fate of former Prime Minister Franசois Fillon and his wife in a case involving suspicions of fictitious work that erupted ahead of the 2017 presidential election.
The day after Emmanuel Macron’s re-election, the judiciary ruled a second time in the case affecting the campaign for the right – wing candidate’s Elysee Palace, which took time but was eventually eliminated in the first round.
Franுவாois Fillon, 68, and Penelope Fillon, 66, who will be competing in any fictional job from the start, will not be there when the decision is made at 1:30 p.m. , Marc Joulaud, 54, told AFP their lawyers.
Franசois Fillon announced that he was stepping down from political life and resigning from the board of directors of the petrochemical company Cipur and Zarubezneft (Hydrocarbons) in late February, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
In the first case, on June 29, 2020, Matignon Tenant was sentenced to five years in prison from 2012 to 2017, including two years in prison, a fine of 375,000 euros and ten years of disqualification for embezzling public funds. And concealment of misuse of corporate assets.
His wife was sentenced to three years ‘imprisonment, a fine of 375,000 euros and two years’ disqualification, and Marc Julod was sentenced to three years ‘suspended imprisonment, a fine of 20,000 euros and five years’ disqualification. The couple immediately appealed and returned to the stand in November, maintaining the same protection in less electrical conditions than the first test.
“I am not a fictional partner who is primarily concerned with money,” François Fillon protested in an introductory statement, condemning “a forty-year (political) commitment destroyed by a satirical newspaper article and an indictment.” “My wife worked with me and it was undeniable,” he said.
One year company required
On appeal, the public prosecutor’s office sought lesser sentences than those imposed by the court. Against François Fillon, he was sentenced to five years in prison, including one year under the electronic bracelet, as well as a fine of 375,000 euros.
For his Franco-Welsh wife, the public prosecutor suspended two years in prison and fined him 100,000 euros and sentenced Mark Julod to three years in prison. Ten, two and three years of disqualification were also sought.
The prosecution argued that a “bundle of clues” enabled Penelope Phillon to establish the “fantasy” of her three jobs as parliamentary assistant to her husband and his deputy between 1998 and 2013, totaling 612,000 euros in total. Even inappropriate “or” expulsion “actions.
For the trial, Pénélope Fillon was hired as a “literary consultant” within the Revue des deux mondes (RDDM) in 2012-2013, a “work of pure convenience” acknowledged by Marc Ladreit de Lacharrière, the publication’s owner and confidant. Franசois Fillon.
Magistrates, on the other hand, demanded that Philon’s two children sign a partial sentence for co – operation agreements signed with their senator’s father between 2005 and 2007 and be released for non – declaration of debt.
The National Assembly, as in the first instance, demanded a refund of more than one million euros.
On the contrary, according to the couple, Penelope Fillon did a certainly “impossible” but very “real” job on the ground “on the ground”. Franங்கois Fillon’s lawyer, Anton Levy, tarnished a “reduced” file like “skin of grief”, citing 41 certificates (establishing) the accuracy and detail of Ms Fillon’s contribution, and called for her release.
Defendant’s lawyers denounced a “media madness” surrounding “Penelope Gate”, confirming that he would have “worked” well there if he had certainly been “blackmailed” into the Revue des deux mondes. The owner of the review, Mark Latrid de Lazzarrier, was convicted in 2018 of misappropriating corporate assets in a “criminal” practice for agreeing to a somewhat fictitious contract.
Did you see the error?Please let us know.