“I have never corrupted anyone”, said Monday, December 5 the former President of the Republic Nicolas Sarkozy, at the opening of the appeal trial of the “wiretapping” case, in which he is retried with his historic lawyer Thierry Herzog and the ex-magistrate Gilbert Azibert. Black suit and tie on a white shirt, the former head of state, 67, agreed to the usual checks before contesting, “with the greatest strength”his guilt.
Prosecuted for “corruption” and “influence peddling”, Mr. Sarkozy is suspected of having committed, in 2014 and via Me Herzog, to support the candidacy of Mr. Azibert for a prestigious post in Monaco, in return for interventions concerning a case then examined by the Court of Cassation. At first instance, on March 1, 2021, the three defendants were sentenced to three years in prison, including one year.
“I am a former President of the Republic, I have never corrupted anyone and let’s admit that it is a strange corruption, without money – not a penny for anyone, without advantage – not a benefit for anyone, and without victim – since no one has been harmed”, he launched in a loud voice, in a crowded courtroom. Taking up the key elements of his defense, he also thundered: “When one is innocent, one is outraged. I come here to defend my honor which has been violated in incredible conditions. I come to convince the court that I did nothing.. Following him, Me Thierry Herzog, 67, declared that he wanted the court to be able to ” to return [son] honor “.
For about four hours, the defense then castigated, as in the first instance, a procedure ” extraordinary “ et “unfair”while the three defendants, seated in the front row, regularly nodded.
New fact, the recordings of the conversations between Mr. Sarkozy and Me Herzog, base of the accusation, must be broadcast during this second trial, which must last until December 16.
Case linked to that on suspicion of Libyan financing
The origin of this affair dates back to the end of 2013, when the two telephones of Nicolas Sarkozy, who left the Elysée the previous year, were “connected” by the judges in charge of the investigation into suspicions of Libyan financing of his 2007 campaign. The investigators then discovered the existence of a third line, unofficial, put into service on January 11, 2014 under the alias “Paul Bismuth” and dedicated to exchanges between the former president and his lawyer.
In these conversations, according to the prosecution, a corruption pact was formed with Gilbert Azibert, then general counsel at the Court of Cassation, accused of having worked behind the scenes to weigh in on an appeal brought by Nicolas Sarkozy in the Bettencourt affair. , in exchange for a “boost” for an honorary position in Monaco.
In that case, “in substance as in form, we witnessed things that we had never seen in the legal annals”pleaded Me Jacqueline Laffont, adviser to Nicolas Sarkozy. The lawyer raised a priority question of constitutionality (QPC) concerning the secrecy of exchanges between a lawyer and his client – a secret that the defense has been wielding since the beginning. Above all, she demanded the total annulment of the procedure, citing the existence of a parallel preliminary investigation, “concealed” to the defence, who has it “private” of elements “discharged”thus violating “equality of arms”.
This investigation was opened in 2014 by the National Financial Prosecutor’s Office (PNF) in order to find the « taupe » who would have informed Nicolas Sarkozy and Thierry Herzog that their line « Bismuth » was bugged. In this context, the fadettes of many lawyers have been peeled, some geolocated. It was finally dismissed at the end of 2019 and passed on to the defense in 2020.
This case in the case, called des « fadettes »led by ricochet to the referral to trial of the current Minister of Justice, Eric Dupond-Moretti, for having launched disciplinary proceedings against three financial magistrates. “You are the last bastion” against one “serious malfunction” of justice, pleaded Me Marie-Alix Canu-Bernard, one of Gilbert Azibert’s lawyers, raising a second QPC on this subject.
The public prosecutor’s office briefly asked the court to dismiss all of these arguments, stressing in particular that, according to the law, the request for cancellation was inadmissible because it was far too late.