Why the trial of Jerome Cahuzac might not take place – Le Point

Jérôme Cahuzac’s secrets may well still remain some time. Monday afternoon, the lawyer of the former Budget Minister Jean Veil, will submit to a criminal court two priority issues of constitutionality (QPC). This means that before deciding the merits of the case the judges will have to answer this question, apparently simple: the State could he commit tax proceedings against Jerome Cahuzac and enter the criminal justice she also punished? In short: is it normal for suspected fraud are doubly punished

If the question were to be considered serious by the judges, they will forward it to the Court of Cassation, which itself? will decide whether to refer it to the constitutional Council. The trial would be suspended and could ultimately did not happen. Jérôme Cahuzac should therefore not answerable to the French of a scandal that shook the Fifth Republic, which has forced Hollande to take a series of measures for transparency in public life. The Cahuzac affair is one of the first records has ever had to deal Eliane Houlette, national financial prosecutor established by a 2013 law This is also from the Cahuzac affair that heritage and potential conflicts of interest of ministers and parliamentarians are scrutinized.

a QPC scary

François Hollande fears that QPC filed by Jean Veil. Indeed, if the lawyer were to be successful, the opinion would have great difficulty understanding that a political-financial business of this scale happening to you. No doubt that the socialist government of Manuel Valls was – unjustly – accused of trying to bury the depravity of one of his flock …

The script for a postponement of the trial may yet be realized. Jean Veil relies, in effect, a decision of the Constitutional Council of March 2015 in the case “EADS”. In this case, senior executives of aerospace group prosecuted for insider trading had been judged. The Constitutional Council had estimated that the disputed facts were the subject of an investigation launched by the Financial Markets Authority (AMF). Criminal justice therefore could not rule on the facts that had already been the subject of an administrative procedure, had deemed wise.

The example of the case Wildenstein

Once this decision to stock exchange transactions, lawyers were worried about its possible impact on other conflicts. Politico-financial scandals about to be considered could they in the future simply be canceled? Christiane Taubira herself, on 15 December, had not she said that the issue of “double taxation and criminal sanction” would necessarily arise?

This was done at the beginning of January Wildenstein trial. Several members of the illustrious family of art dealers were being prosecuted for failing to mention the treasury tens of millions of euros in the estate of Daniel Wildenstein, who died in October 2001. But, as was to be held the trial, the lawyers of the accused, Guy Wildenstein, filed a QPC to challenge their client to be pursued by both the IRS and the courts. Hervé and Eric Temine Dezeuze had thus argued that the criminal and tax sanctions had the same goal – punish fraudsters – and that they therefore could not coexist. In short: we can not be tried twice for the same offense. In this very complex trial, judges had considered the issue relevant enough to transmit to the Court of Cassation. The trial Wildenstein had therefore been suspended pending a possible decision of the Constitutional Council.

What about the Cahuzac affair? Recall that, to escape trial, the Wildenstein and Jérôme Cahuzac use all the same foundation: the necessity and proportionality of criminal offenses and penalties. A principle guaranteed by the European Court. Like what, everyone is entitled to human rights. Even those who are at loggerheads with the taxman!