Election results alert
The results of the presidential and legislative elections for your locality, as well as political news, directly in your mailbox.
“It’s the story of an ambitious young finance inspector,” says the voiceover of the documentary. Having gone viral since its broadcast on Tuesday, this film by investigative journalist Jean-Baptiste Rivoire features a main character: Emmanuel Macron. The scenario ? A future president then an investment banker at Rothschild who minimizes, even cheats on his heritage and goes so far as to capture the money for a “deal”. This documentary based on a “hypothesis”, raises more questions than it answers. 10 days before the presidential election, if the Élysée categorically denies these conjectures, like Rothschild, criticism comes from the side of the opponents of the candidate behind the hashtag #Rothschildgate.
What is the documentary about?
Entitled “Macron’s heritage, where did the millions go?”, 8th episode of a series devoted to the head of state, the documentary broadcast on the Off Investigation site details several tax practices of the future president.
The first: the underestimated declaration of his assets to the tax authorities in 2014. That year, Emmanuel Macron declared an amount below the threshold of the ISF. Two years later, as Le Canard Enchaîné reveals, the one who was then Minister of the Economy under François Hollande was caught by the tax authorities and had to submit to a catch-up of 6,000 euros after having underestimated his assets.
The film then questions the gap between the banker’s salary and his tax returns to the High Authority for Transparency in Public Life (HATVP). While he earned nearly 3 million euros at Rothschild between 2008 and 2012, in 2014 he declared only 156,000 euros in assets. What did he do with his money? “He squandered the equivalent of a minimum wage per day,” replies Olivier Berruyer, blogger and creator of the “Les Crises” site, interviewed in the film.
Finally, while conceding that it has no tangible “proof” but with the help of an anonymous source at Rothschild, the documentary ensures that Emmanuel Macron, then a banker at Rothschild, pocketed between “5 and 10 million euros” when Nestlé took over the infant nutrition branch of Pfizer in 2012, against the 720,000 euros declared to the HATVP. A sum deemed not very credible by the witnesses of the film. Worse, part of this money would be housed in “a trust, placed in Jersey, Guernsey or the Isle of Man”.
Are there illegal practices?
The “catching up” of the ISF is not new. At the time, the press echoed it, and the president paid the bill. Nothing illegal, then. But according to journalists, it would not be a mistake, but a political arrangement intended to caress the left wing of public opinion by appearing as not subject to the ISF. “There was tax optimization, but the reason is not economic but political” assures Hervé Martin, journalist at Le Canard Enchaîné, author of the scoop in 2016 interviewed in the documentary.
Regarding the gap between its income and its assets, the question had agitated many media at the time, and led Anticor to seize the HATVP. “The controls implemented by the High Authority (…) did not reveal any element likely to call into question the exhaustive, exact and sincere nature of the declaration of Mr. Emmanuel Macron”, had replied the HATVP. “I made a good living when I worked in the private sector. I paid a lot of taxes. I am not someone who loves money otherwise I would not have left the private sector. Unfortunately you do not take into account in your calculation the work I did in the house I have and the High Authority took it into account without revealing it (…) I had a lot of debt when I left the public service, I gradually repaid part of my loans ” had for his part replied Macron in 2017 on France 2.
Finally, the “trust” denounced is neither substantiated nor illegal. “The hypothesis of our source, who does not know where Macron’s trust would be, let’s be clear, is that Rothschild being Franco-British, these opaque structures would be installed in Jersey, Guernsey or on the Isle of Man. We don’t have absolute proof, but what troubles us is that when we contact the Élysée and Rothschild, with specific elements, we don’t have the beginning of an answer, “explains the author. to Humanity. This assembly would not be illegal, since it was the subject in the past of an agreement with the tax authorities. Still, neither the film nor Macron’s entourage lifts the veil on the reality of this commission.
What are the reactions?
Contacted by Le Parisien on Thursday, the Ministry of the Economy indicates that “there is no tax ruling (agreement between the administration and a company, editor’s note) between Bercy and the Rothschild bank to exempt the fees of managing partners”. A little earlier, Rothschild and Co “formally denied” that “bankers in France would be paid abroad”.
A close friend of Macron had denounced “stink balls” at the end of the campaign on Wednesday. If from a legal point of view, the documentary does not raise any irregularity, it could still reinforce the image of the president “of the rich”, while he is entangled in another affair: MacKinseygate, named after the cabinets of advice called upon by the executive for 893.9 million euros in 2021.
The opponents of the president were also numerous to react. “Is there an agreement between Bercy and the Rothschild bank to tax the fees of its managing partners outside France, as the magazine Off Investigation asserts? and which actually allows legal tax evasion, so to speak”, accuses François Ruffin, close to France Insoumise.
Florian Philippot, president of the Patriots, demands referral to the National Financial Prosecutor’s Office. “What is the National Financial Prosecutor’s Office waiting for to react, he who was so quick for François Fillon’s costumes? “Adds Eric Zemmour, the candidate of Reconquest!.
The boss of LR, Christian Jacob, for his part estimated in a tweet that the accusations were “serious”, summoning the head of state to “respond” to them so that “all the light” be “shed in this case. “.