Bernard Squarcini is “a great servant of the State”, “an excellent Frenchman”, “flexible and feline” – It is the former deputy (UMP) of the Tarn and member of Charles Pasqua’s cabinet in the general council of Hauts-de-Seine, Bernard Carayon, who says this. On the stand, on Thursday, November 14, this witness, summoned by the defense of the former head of the Central Directorate of Internal Intelligence (DCRI), ancestor of the General Directorate of Internal Security (DGSI), however regrets that ““there is [ait] traditionally a trial in France [fait aux] State resources put at the service of the company ».
On November 14 and 15, the question posed before the Paris criminal court, before which Mr. Squarcini is referred for eleven counts of prevention, is the following: does the former spy chief, close to Sarkozy’s networks, , used the resources of the service that he directed, between 2008 and 2012, for purposes that go beyond the legal framework? Two of the four parts of the investigation opened in 2016 were discussed at the beginning of the process: Mr. Squarcini’s identification of a blackmailer who claimed to have photographs of LVMH boss Bernard Arnault in gallant company, as well as wiretaps carried out on two occasions on a police officer, to uncertain reasons.
In December 2008, a few months after the arrival of “Squale” – his nickname in Place Beauvau – at the head of internal intelligence, his teams were in charge of monitoring several internet cafes. LVMH’s number two, Pierre Godé, “ [lui avait signalé] that he [avait] an urgent and confidential problem »explains Mr. Squarcini in the bar: ” He [m’a parlé] of destabilizing actions, of emails he received”linked to “an attempt at blackmail”.
The vast majority of agents sent to the field do not know the name of the victim and the purpose of the extortion attempt. The alleged blackmailer, Bernard Arnault’s former driver, was quickly identified. The device is then lifted, without the individual being questioned or a report being written.
Vague answers
Having finished this summary of the facts, the president of the court, Benjamin Blanchet, moves on to questions. What appears to be a dialogue of the deaf quickly emerges between the magistrates and the civil parties, on the one hand, and the defense, on the other: the former question the precise legal framework of the actions carried out. Bernard Squarcini offers vague answers.
You have 66.02% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
