The elected official from Nîmes is being retried in Montpellier after the overturning of his conviction for influence peddling to a 12-month suspended prison sentence, a €15,000 fine and five years of ineligibility, pronounced on April 14, 2022 by the Nîmes Court of Appeal. For legal and technical reasons, the prosecution believes that it can no longer prosecute him.
After 18 years of proceedings, the so-called Senim affair will end in a final legal upheaval for Franck Proust, the president of Nîmes Metropole, threatened with a sentence of five years of ineligibility, twelve months suspended prison sentence and €15,000 fine for influence peddling?
Several advantageous real estate transactions
Found guilty on April 14, 2022 by the Nîmes Court of Appeal of having offered a Nîmes real estate agent, Jean-Luc Colonna d’Istria, very advantageous conditions in several real estate transactions in 2004 and 2006, in return for the use of a country premises in 2001, Franck Proust was retried on July 1 in Montpellier, after the intervention of the Court of Cassation.
The high court overturned the Nîmes decision on a legal point. For the prosecution, the period over which this influence peddling allegedly took place began in November 2002 and ended in February 2006, but the judges retained in their decision the provision of this camping premises, “late 2001, early 2002”. A date prior to the period covered by the prevention: impossible, considered the Court of Cassation, which therefore sent the case back to be judged in Montpellier.
A legal difficulty in the case
“Do you agree to appear voluntarily?” on these facts located outside of prevention, asks at the opening of the hearing President Henri Pons to Franck Proust and Jean-Luc Colonna d’Istria, who is being prosecuted for concealment of influence peddling? Both refuse.
General Counsel Isabelle Delande then takes the floor. “With this refusal of the two defendants to appear on the facts of 2001, your court is faced with a difficulty in the case: some of the elements of the offence are not in the prevention. From the moment the constituent elements are not in the charge, the court must enter into the process of acquittal.”
Taking up the image evoked in the file of a “return of the elevator” to describe the acts linking the elected official to the promoter, the magistrate continues the metaphor. “The court is not seized of the outward journey of this elevator, and cannot therefore convict. You will only be able to enter into a process of acquittal for influence peddling and necessarily into a process of acquittal for receiving stolen goods.”
“Something that broke my life, my career”
The hearing continues, however, with the president appearing determined to examine the merits of the case, while the defense contests Anticor’s constitution as a civil party. “I have been suffering from this situation for over 20 years, which apart from the legal issues is only a problem of rumor.” Franck Proust considers at the bar“Yes or no I did an act that harmed the city of Nimes at Senim, the Nîmes? I will be 20 years younger, I will do the same thing. Through this file I have not only respecting the decisions of the municipal council taken unanimously. It’s something that has destroyed my life, my career, my parents who are there, my children.”
Franck Proust then details the progress of the disputed real estate transactions, one of which, relating to the land on which the brewery “Les Trois Brasseurs” is located, near the Costières stadium, would have allowed Jean-Luc Colonna d’Istria to make significant profits by simply playing middleman.
Rent paid in cash
“For influence peddling, there must be a corruption pact. I would like someone to show me where the corruption pact is” insists Franck Proust, while the court questions the payment, in cash, of his campaign premises rented to the Nîmes developer. “To pay €146.66, you need small coins” notes the president.
But the preliminary position raised from the outset by the prosecution suggests that the day could end, late, with requests to drop the charges. The decision will in any case be put under advisement.
