Suspected of competing with his associates in Monaco, he is released
When the criminal court retained an investigation file on tax evasion funds, a Monaco business manager was accused of theft, fraud, breach of trust. Clearly, he was accused from the year 2015 of mega profits on the back of the civil parties. In this case, the current owners of SAM Serelys Pharma, which specializes in the marketing of food supplements.
How could this sexagenarian have filled his pockets at a time when he was going to transmit all of his company’s documents? We have to go back to 2007, when the plaintiffs first put 300,000 euros on the table to buy 60% of the defendant’s company.
Then, in 2014, they decided to acquire all of it for a larger sum of 4 million euros.
A competing business run… by his own daughter
In the sales contract, there was a non-competition clause from the seller in exchange for the title of vice-president. Everything was going well… Until October 2017, when this substitute was put on sick leave. “The SAM representativereminded the president Jérôme Fougeras Lavergnolle, discovered a file concerning a Hiramed company, created in May 2014 by the defendant and his wife, but managed by their daughter. It was neither more nor less than a company that marketed competing products…”
Very unhappy with this blow in the back, the new leader dismissed him.
Immediately, the accused character demanded reimbursement of his expense reports, which he did not forget to multiply several times. A misfortune never comes alone ! ” Afterwardssaid the magistrate, suspected him in the computer of the e-mails exchanged with the girl where he informed her of the addresses concerning the Parisian wholesalers and pharmacists, not to mention the gynecologists who had relations with Serelys Pharma. »
It was too much ! The civil parties lodged a complaint for acts of fraud (the multiplication of expense reports), theft (the listings sent to the daughter) and breach of trust (various personal activities).
At the helm, the defendant contested all of the offences.
“Only logistics data”
“Double invoicing of expense reports? It may possibly be an error, but not a scam. File theft? They did not belong to the company and did not contain any sensitive, confidential and personal information. They had been created a long time ago and they contained only logistics data. As for reproaching myself for the use of the computer, I had been using it for ten years to transmit digital material. » Justifications that make the suspect scream.
“This individual did not want anyone to discover his occult activity. He sent 64 emails to clients and signed contracts. In the expense reports, he was wrong 15 times. Why doesn’t he have a penny? Why has he never appeared as a shareholder? Because he had put everything in the name of his wife to avoid heavy taxation. »
Voice of the civil parties, Mes Richard Mullot and Frédéric de Baets (Nice Bar) laugh.
“Economic and financial crime still has a bright future. Our customers considered this character as a friend. He told them nonsense and devoted much of his time to the activities and development of another company. There is a systematic side: fraudulent intent! » It was claimed in full 8 million euros plus 60,000 euros for costs.
“We are not going to fight for expense reportsdropped Emmanuelle Carniello’s substitute. The computer can be used for its use as well as for transmitting private data. Only files, even if they are public data, have value. I propose a sentence of 10,000 euros suspended. »
The last word is defense. “This file theft is a sea serpentconfirmed Me Christophe Ballerio. The civil party does not provide proof that it is the owner. The two competing companies? We are in a niche market where one sells a product for the menopause; the other for osteoporosis. Who was not aware of the Hiramed company? Even the staff knew about it! Moreover, all incorporated companies are published in the Official Journal of Monaco. You are without material element, nor intentional and especially not fraudulent. »
The court has just acquitted the defendant. The judges considered that it was a dispute between partners and that the offense was not established. In this case, the doubt should benefit the defendant. Lawyers for the civil parties appealed the decision.