More than a month after the debates, the sentence fell this Wednesday, October 23, 2024. A man and a woman – in a relationship at the time of the facts – were convicted of having defrauded dozens of residents of Indre and Cher . The public prosecutor had requested a suspended prison sentence of fifteen months for him, and six months for her. The Châteauroux court followed the requisitions. For two years, they will have to submit to several obligations, including work and compensation for victims.
Between 2021 and 2023, Jocelyn, a very young business manager, had quotes signed and collected deposits from her clients for nearly €50,000. He never placed any orders, or so marginally that it went unnoticed.
Nearly €45,000 in damages
At the helm, Wednesday September 11, 2024, Jocelyn regretted the disastrous management of his company, France Fenêtres Bourges, and admitted to having been a failed boss. For the court, he comes closer to the definition of a crook. His organization could only lead to a fiasco to the point that the thirty-year-old was, according to the court, never decently able to believe that the company could one day function. “You had no intention of keeping this business alive”commented the president of the court, Agnès Boissinot. The deposits were used to finance the couple's lifestyle, travel, restaurants and luxury car rental.
Deep dismay
The victims, many of whom traveled to testify and submit their requests for damages, returned during the hearing to their feeling of shame and betrayal. M's cliente Delphine Durançon, an elderly woman, confided to him that she was deeply distressed: “She blames herself a lot. She repeats that she was too naive. »
Sonia was alone at the bar to hear the judgment and the long list of compensation requested. In total, eighteen civil party constitutions were received. The two former business leaders will have to pay, jointly, nearly €45,000 in damages, for material and moral damage, as well as €6,500 in procedural costs. Jocelyn was found solely responsible for the harm of some of the victims.
While the prosecution had requested the seizure of the defendant's vehicle, the court ordered its return, considering that there was no established link between this Audi – which would have been offered by a member of the family – and the affair.
