A Paris city official tried before the Paris criminal court for illegally charging interest to obtain social housing was found guilty… but acquitted, according to the “Dupond-Moretti jurisprudence”, named after the former Minister of Justice. , himself tried and acquitted of illegal taking of interest.
The trial of the 13my correctional chamber, consulted on Friday the 1stAhem November of the Agence France-Presse (AFP), mentions that “the illegal taking of interests is materially perfectly characterized” but that the accused, Manelle S., had not had a “sufficient awareness” of it.
To defend his case, his lawyer had explicitly referred to the ruling of the Court of Justice of the Republic (CJR) which, in November 2023, acquitted Mr. Dupond-Moretti of illegal charging of interest.
“In fact, in this ruling, contrary to the usual and ancient jurisprudence, according to which guilty intention is characterized by the sole fact that its author knowingly carried out the act that constitutes the material element of the crime – that is, -let’s say- voluntarily placed itself in an objective situation of conflict of interest -, this high court [la CJR] ruled that it was also necessary to prove “the sufficient awareness that the accused might have of exposing himself to the commission of an illicit appropriation of interests.”noted, with some irony, the criminal court.
The court also sarcastically observed that the accused “has not completed higher studies in law, nor has he held jobs that lead to the development or confirmation of legal skills – such as the profession of criminal lawyer or the role of Minister of Justice, custody of Seals ».
Consequently, the court held that “the intentional element, characterized under the influence of the previous jurisprudence, is no longer characterized under the influence of the jurisprudence resulting from the sentence” of the CJR, for which he pronounced the accused’s acquittal.
Called before Judge Dupond-Moretti, the CJR considered that the minister had placed himself in a situation of conflict of interest by opening administrative investigations against four magistrates whom he had criticized when he was a lawyer, but who could not be found guilty. due to lack of evidence “intentional”.
