The murky links between intelligence and private interests are being examined by the Paris criminal court: the former top policeman Bernard Squarcini, suspected of having taken advantage of his networks to obtain confidential information and privileges for the benefit of LVMH above all, is on trial with other nine people since Wednesday.
The former central director of internal intelligence (DCRI, now DGSI) will have to appear until November 29 for 11 crimes ranging from passive influence trafficking to the embezzlement of public funds, including the compromising of national defense secrets, the falsification of public writings or even complicity in the violation of professional secrecy.
In this dossier, the man nicknamed ”the Shark” is suspected of having taken advantage of his contacts with the intelligence and the police to obtain information on behalf of private interests, in particular on behalf of the head of the luxury group LVMH, Bernard Arnault .
Ousted by François Hollande who considered him too close to Nicolas Sarkozy, the former spy agency chief became head of a business intelligence consultancy called Kyrnos, working mainly with LVMH.
The investigating magistrates identified four aspects in their investigations: among these, the attempt in 2008 by DCRI police officers to identify the perpetrator of a private blackmail attempt against Bernard Arnault, reported by a police officer constituted a civil party involved in the case and who was the subject of a “completely illegal” wiretap which, according to his lawyers, Vincent Brengarth and William Bourdon, “seriously compromised his career”.
Another aspect: the espionage of François Ruffin and his newspaper Fakir between 2013 and 2016.
The journalist, who was filming “Merci Patron”, a satirical film on the world luxury leader which won the César for best documentary in 2017, had worried the group because he intended to disturb the general assemblies of the multinational.
“Bernard Squarcini disputes the terms of the referral order,” his lawyers Patrick Maisonneuve and Marie-Alix Canu-Bernard told AFP.<span data-ccp-props="{"134233117":false,"134233118":false
In particular, “the link between his contract with LVMH and an investigation that he allegedly conducted more than five years earlier as head of the DCRI, for the sole purpose of protecting the reputation of the LVMH leader, does not make sense,” they estimated.
– LVMH not among the defendants –
Together with him, nine other men will be tried, suspected of having responded to Squarcini’s requests, including the prefect Pierre Lieutaud, at the time number 2 of the national intelligence coordinator, and Laurent Marcadier, former magistrate of the Paris court.
“This process should allow us to understand how it is possible that today in France a company like LVMH can allow itself to be spied on and infiltrated by a journalist in a newspaper, with the help of a former high official who, when he even directed internal intelligence”, hope the lawyers of François Ruffin, Mes Benjamin Sarfati and Laure Heinich.
“And we still wonder how the principal, the LVMH group, was able to benefit from a judicial agreement in the public interest (CJIP) which allows him to escape trial, allowing Bernard Squarcini and the other perpetrators to appear alone in this matter” , they observe.
The luxury group has in fact paid a fine of 10 million euros at the end of 2021 as part of this Cjip negotiation with the Prosecutor’s Office to avoid trial.
Two men have already been convicted in this case: the former director of the Paris judicial police, Christian Flaesch, who in 2013 had written discussions with Mr. Squarcini, in particular on the proceedings brought by Hermès against LVMH, was convicted in February with the conditional.
Former intelligence commissioner Jean-François Digeon, who carried out missions for LVMH after his retirement, was sentenced to eight months in prison and a fine of 3,000 euros as part of a prior guilty plea, a sort of French guilty plea.
#Influence #peddling #benefit #LVMH #Bernard #Squarcini #trial #Wednesday
Interview Between Time.news Editor and Intelligence Expert
Time.news Editor: Welcome! Today, we’re delving into a situation that has shaken the foundations of intelligence ethics in France. We have the trial of Bernard Squarcini, a former top policeman, who’s accused of using his intel networks for private gain, specifically benefitting LVMH. To discuss this with us, we have Dr. Claire Fontaine, an expert in intelligence ethics and public policy. Claire, thank you for joining us.
Dr. Claire Fontaine: Thank you for having me! It’s an important topic that warrants serious discussion.
Time.news Editor: To start off, can you shed some light on the nature of the accusations against Squarcini? What stands out to you in this case?
Dr. Claire Fontaine: Absolutely. Bernard Squarcini, former director of the DCRI, is facing an array of charges involving passive influence trafficking, embezzlement of public funds, and compromising national defense secrets. What’s particularly chilling is how he allegedly utilized his position to facilitate private interests, specifically benefiting LVMH, a luxury goods giant. This illustrates how intelligence can be weaponized for corporate gain, undermining public trust.
Time.news Editor: It’s concerning, to say the least. The trial lists multiple crimes he’s purportedly committed. In your opinion, how severe are these allegations in relation to national security?
Dr. Claire Fontaine: The severity is significant. Not only does it challenge the integrity of intelligence agencies, but it also raises broader issues about the ethical use of power. When someone in a position of authority—like Squarcini—engages in such behaviors, it can lead to a culture of impunity where the lines between public service and private interest become dangerously blurred. This could ultimately jeopardize national security.
Time.news Editor: You mentioned corporate interests. It appears that Squarcini established a consultancy that primarily worked with LVMH after his ousting from the intelligence community. How does that transition reflect on the relationship between intelligence entities and private corporations?
Dr. Claire Fontaine: This transition highlights a troubling trend where former public officials leverage their contacts for private profit. It raises questions about conflicts of interest and the extent to which intelligence operatives may prioritize their financial gain over their duty to public service. Transparency in these relationships is critical to prevent further erosion of public confidence in the intelligence community.
Time.news Editor: One aspect of this case involves the alleged wiretapping of a police officer who was investigating a blackmail attempt against LVMH. How does this incident contribute to our understanding of misuse of intelligence powers?
Dr. Claire Fontaine: This incident serves as a stark example of how intelligence capabilities can be misappropriated. The illegal wiretapping not only undermines legal statutes surrounding privacy and surveillance but also points to the lengths some individuals may go to protect the interests of private entities. Such actions can wreak havoc on employees’ careers and further institutionalize a fear among whistleblowers and journalists who might expose wrongdoing.
Time.news Editor: Speaking of journalists, the accusations also include espionage against François Ruffin and his newspaper. Can you elaborate on this?
Dr. Claire Fontaine: The allegations of espionage against a journalist are particularly alarming. It underscores the potential for abuse of power, whereby state apparatus is used to suppress dissent or investigative journalism that threatens powerful corporate interests. The chilling effect this could have on free press is profound—if journalists sense they could be surveilled or compromised for their reporting, they may self-censor, thereby diminishing public dialogue and accountability.
Time.news Editor: LVMH, notably, is not among the defendants, which complicates the situation. What implications does this have for corporate accountability in cases like this?
Dr. Claire Fontaine: Indeed, LVMH’s absence from the list of defendants raises questions about corporate accountability and complicity. It suggests a need for clearer regulations regarding the role of corporations in influencing state actors or engaging in unethical practices. This trial could serve as a precedent regarding how corporate giants interact with intelligence services and may even lead to a reevaluation of the ethical frameworks governing corporate behavior.
Time.news Editor: As this trial unfolds, what do you believe is the broader takeaway for both the intelligence community and the public?
Dr. Claire Fontaine: The broader takeaway is the urgent need for reform and greater oversight in the intelligence sector to ensure accountability. The public deserves to know that their intelligence agencies are safeguarding national interests, not serving corporate entities. Transparency is key to restoring trust, and this trial could catalyze necessary changes to prevent similar abuses in the future.
Time.news Editor: Thank you, Claire, for sharing your insights on this critical issue. It will be fascinating to see how the trial unfolds and what it will mean for the future of intelligence and corporate ethics in France.
Dr. Claire Fontaine: Thank you for having me! It’s a crucial conversation that we must keep having as these events develop.