The trial for tax evasion former Budget Minister Jerome Cahuzac opened Monday afternoon on an austere legal battle whose outcome will determine the holding or postponing the debate. Three years after the political earthquake caused by the lie of the Minister on behalf hidden abroad, Jérôme Cahuzac appears before the Paris court for tax evasion and money laundering, as well as for having “minus” his declaration of assets when entered the government in 2012. at his side, his ex-wife Patricia and their advisors Ménard: Swiss banker François Reyl and lawyer Philippe Houman. They face up to seven years in prison and one million euro fine
& gt;. & Gt; Read also: the Cahuzac affair explained to zero
The lawyers of Jerome Cahuzac, Jean Veil and Jean-Alain Michel, filed two “priority issues of constitutionality” (QPC) challenging the cumulation of criminal and tax sanctions. The lawyer Patricia Menard, Sebastien Schapira, has done the same. “It is not because one is designated by the press as a pariah that we can not do right, and QPC is a question of law,” commented Mr. Veil.
“Jerome Cahuzac wishes to be judged, and as soon as possible,” Michel said, assuring that it was in no way a delaying tactic to delay the trial or to escape his client justice. The lawyers pointed out that Jerome Cahuzac had “agreed to a tax adjustment and an increase of 80%”, these “money was paid” and that “even if he has a right of action” vis-à-vis the tax authorities, “it will not use.” “This case is over,” insisted Mr. Veil. “The double jeopardy is irregular and contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights”, has he said, estimating that this particular raised the issue of “proportionality” of sanctions.
If the court accepts the QPC, the trial will be postponed for several months, as happened recently in the art dealer Guy Wildenstein, also tried for tax evasion and money laundering. One case cited at the bar, and a resounding precedent that EADS
& gt;. & Gt; Read also: Towards a postponement of the trial of Jerome Cahuzac?
On March 18, the Constitutional Council had decided to discontinue criminal proceedings against leaders of the aerospace and defense group, prosecuted for insider trading, because the facts had been reviewed by an administrative court, the AMF. Wise had invoked a fundamental principle of law that prohibits judging and punishing the same offense twice.
In the Wildenstein case, the presiding judge found that there was a “serious doubt” on a constitutional principle, the principle contained in Article 8 of the Declaration of the rights of man and citizen. According to this article, also spoke Monday at the hearing, “the law should establish only sorrows strictly and obviously necessary.”
“Double pursuit, double penalty! “Denounced Mr. Schapira, saying that” the fact that the court has the monopoly of deprivation of liberty “- since the IRS only provides financial sanctions – was” not sufficient “to justify the accumulation of sanctions. “We must consider the severity of the financial penalty,” he argued, noting that Patricia Cahuzac had discharged an increased recovery of over 2 million.
Enter into force on 1 March 2010, the QPC allows any person, party to a lawsuit to challenge a legislative provision on the grounds that it infringes the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. If the matter is deemed serious by the court, he transferred to the Court of Cassation, which can then seize the Constitutional Council, called upon to decide.
RTchpiret Jerome and Patricia #Cahuzac settled in the courtroom. The former spouses have a kiss
-. Charlotte Chaffanjon (CChaffanjon) February 8, 2016
Follow live updates from our reporters at the court:
https://twitter.com/CChaffanjon?lang=fr
https: // twitter .com / MarcLeplongeon? lang = en
No comments:
Post a Comment