Last Thursday, the Ivorian media account First Mag claimed on Twitter that “The player Achraf Hakimi’s wife had filed for divorce and wanted more than half of the Moroccan footballer’s property and fortune. […] But when she arrived in court, she realized that Achraf Hakimi had no property and the bank had none either. » The PSG defender would have “put all his fortune under his mother’s name a long time ago », thus preventing his ex-wife Hiba Abouk from obtaining “the jackpot”. A tweet which, beyond being clearly tinged with sexism, suggests that one of the two spouses could get away with it without giving the slightest penny to the one with whom he shared his life. If it makes masculinists dream, it’s simply impossible. And master Tiphaine Mary, lawyer in family law and inheritance law practicing in the 17e arrondissement in Paris, explains why.
Marriage contract and fake surprise
A little background before the fact checking : the couple Achraf Hakimi-Hiba Abouk got married in 2020 ” secretly “, as his ex-wife tells in an interview for the Spanish magazineHello! before the birth of their first child – Amin Hakimi being born on February 11, 2020. Even today, the place of their marriage is not known, but it can be assumed that being both Spanish and born in Madrid, they be married on the lands of Cervantes. Still, three years later, the time is at the end of the idyll and the divorce of the two spouses. A decision that dates back a few months already, the PSG player having shown up alone on the red carpet of the Ballon d’Or on October 17th. A fact confirmed since by his wife via his social networks. If the f news circulating on Twitter does not say anything about the place where the divorce would have been pronounced, it is very likely that the real procedure, still in progress today, will take place in France, Achraf Hakimi and Hiba Abouk both residing in Boulogne Billancourt since the transfer of the Moroccan international to PSG on July 6, 2021. The applicable law could therefore be French or Spanish law. In both cases, the matrimonial regime, the one that governs marriages and therefore divorces, is similar. And in both cases, the story told in this tweet written by this famous paid media Twitter Blue to appear more legitimate does not hold water.
First point, the tweet suggests that the Hakimi spouses would have married under the matrimonial regime of community of property: “The wife of player Achraf Hakimi filed for divorce and wanted more than half of the property and fortune of the Moroccan footballer. » Which means that everything acquired (income, property, debts) during the marriage is divided between the two at the time of the divorce. An unlikely option given the situation of the couple, one being a footballer with an estimated income of more than 12 million euros per year, while the other is an actress whose fortune is estimated at several million euros. , for master Tiphaine Mary: ” In Generally, when you have careers like that and earn so much money, you make a separation of property contract. And in this case, he would have no interest in putting his property in the name of his mother, since his wife would in any case have no right to the property acquired by him alone. » A separation of property contract means that each spouse owns the property they acquired before the marriage and the property they acquire separately during the marriage. This marriage contract is signed before a notary, with the agreement of both parties and before the wedding. In the event of a change of diet along the way, this must also be done in consultation. In summary, it is impossible that Mrs. Hakimi could have discovered that she was not entitled to 50% of their common heritage, for the simple and good reason that the two spouses necessarily knew their matrimonial regime. And Mr. Hakimi therefore had no need to conceal his fortune in the name of his mother, since his wife would not have the right to do so.
An “everything for the daronne” worthy of a Winamax strategy
Let’s even admit that they have not signed a marriage contract and that by default, community of property applies. Achraf Hakimi can’t get away with giving everything to his mother to have nothing under his own name. “French judges could consider that he is organizing his insolvency and that would have no impact when the property is divided”, explains the lawyer. Especially since in this case, the player would have been obliged to have the agreement of his wife in order to make donations to his mother, especially given the amounts mentioned. And if ever he had sent the money on the sly to his mother’s account without informing his wife, Hiba Abouk could ask that they be put back into the division at the time of the divorce. Or that they are written as Achraf Hakimi’s debt to her. These donations are also heavily taxed by the state. If it allows a tax reduction of 100,000 euros every 15 years, the surplus will be taxed according to the amount, namely between 30 and 45% for a donation ranging from 552,324 euros to more than 1.8 million. Not really beneficial. Transfers of money that would not even allow the Moroccan to escape his obligations, namely to pay a right of relief during the divorce and a compensatory allowance afterwards. The duty of relief is an alimony that the one with the most income pays to the other to maintain a standard of living equivalent to that which was his before the start of the divorce proceedings. It is calculated according to the income of the spouse who pays it and the needs of the other. Since wages are paid only to the employee in France, transferring them to his mother would not change the accounts.
Last element, in the case of the payment of a compensatory allowance, which would compensate for the difference in standard of living after the divorce is pronounced, the judge should also take into account the sums spun to his mother since he would consider that the player organizes having lower incomes. According to Tiphaine Mary, the compensatory allowance paid by Achraf Hakimi to Hiba Abouk should in any case not be high since the two ex-lovebirds were only married for three years: “Otherwise, she would have to demonstrate that she put her acting career on hold to take care of the children. » The family law lawyer also ticks on another point:“It is written everywhere that she would have learned it in front of the judge, which reinforces the fake news aspect, because a divorce procedure is contradictory. We must communicate all the documents before the hearing. We don’t arrive on the day of the hearing with a whole bunch of donations to tell him: “You have no right to anything.” So she would have known before. »
“In summary, this fake news does not make sense in several respects: 1. they most likely have a marriage contract and therefore there is no need to hide his fortune in the name of his mother since his wife does not there would be no right. 2. at the level of the compensatory allowance, it has no interest either since from the moment the judge knows that, he reintegrates the sums and the heritage given to his mother. 3. in terms of duty to help, it is not justified either because it is his income that will be taken into account. » Accused of having been unfaithful, Achraf Hakimi could even pay damages to his ex-wife as part of the divorce proceedings. His accusation of rape cannot for the time being be included in the file, the side of PSG still being presumed innocent. There is also the question of alimony for the two children born of their union, but that is another story. Conclusion: don’t get married, it’s too complicated.
Achraf Hakimi supported by Walid Regragui and called up for selection
Comments by Tiphaine Mary recorded by AEC.
- -
