Summoned to the stand, the CEO of LVMH Bernard Arnault testified, this Thursday, November 28, in the morning, at the trial of the former boss of internal intelligence Bernard Squarcini, suspected of having taken advantage of his networks to obtain confidential information and privileges for the benefit of the luxury group in particular.
“I was absolutely unaware”: the CEO of LVMH Bernard Arnault assured Thursday that he was unaware of any surveillance operation between 2013 and 2016 of François Ruffin, whom he accused of “instrumentalizing” the trial of the ex- head of domestic intelligence Bernard Squarcini.
“I would like to remind you that I am here as a witness, a simple witness, and that my indictment was never considered by the investigating judges,” declared the businessman in a black suit after taking the oath, as is customary, “to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth”.
In a full courtroom, he recalled that LVMH signed a CJIP (Judicial Agreement of Public Interest) of 10 million euros in 2021 in this case. A legal agreement “in which it is indicated that the group does not recognize any responsibility”, which was “proposed” by the magistrates and which aimed to “avoid being caught in the media hullabaloo which followed”, declares the CEO .
The businessman was cited by the lawyers of François Ruffin, civil party in this case and sitting a few meters away, to be specifically on the surveillance operation set up between 2013 and 2016 by Bernard Squarcini and several other service providers of the group against the newspaper Fakir and the one who has since become a deputy.
At the time, François Ruffin was filming “Merci Patron!”, a satirical film about the world leader in luxury, which won the César for best documentary in 2017. Initially, he worried the group because he planned to disrupt the multinational's general meetings.
As “the largest group in the euro zone”, with “220,000 direct employees”, “75 brands”, which pays “8 billion” to the State per year and “recruits the most in France”, Bernard Arnault estimates that it It was at the time an “absolute untruth” to say, like François Ruffin, “that we were champions of layoffs and relocations”.
“I think he is trying to exploit this trial for personal, media, political, even commercial reasons, because at the same time he is promoting his latest film,” he continues, calling it “shocking.” .
“Pretty funny” movie
In this case with multiple ramifications, Bernard Arnault was heard by the investigating judges but neither he nor LVMH were brought before the court alongside Mr. Squarcini and the nine other defendants.
The court, through its president Benjamin Blanchet, however, increased the number of questions about its role during the three weeks of hearing.
Was he aware of an attempted blackmail targeting his private life in 2008, for which the DCRI mobilized its agents to identify the blackmailer?, the president asks. “Absolutely not.”
Concerning the surveillance of François Ruffin and Fakir, a-Was he kept informed by Pierre Godé, the vice-president of the group, who has since died? “Absolutely not.”
However, in a conversation recorded on March 6, 2013, his secretary mentioned to Bernard Squarcini a “letter from Fakir, I don't know how Mr. Arnault got it”. “I’m not used to receiving letters from Fakir, that doesn’t mean anything to me,” replies the witness.
The next day, Pierre Godé spoke on the telephone with Mr. Squarcini about an “infiltration”? “It is not for me to judge what Mr. Godé can do, I was absolutely unaware of all that. The group sticks to a very clear policy of absolute legality,” he repeats. -he. .
Precisely, the president lit up at length documents on the internal “ethics” of LVMH. For Bernard Arnault, there is a “team” dedicated to ensuring these commitments are respected, which “at the time depended on Mr. Godé”. He had “the same powers as me” and “full autonomy”, he adds.
Throughout the questions, he presents himself as a “supporter of press freedom”, a candidate who wanted to “see” the film “Thank you boss!” before its public release. “I saw it when it came out, I found it quite funny.” François Ruffin “is much better on the cinematographic level than on the political level,” he says.
The advice of François Ruffin, then the prosecutor and the defense of the defendants must then ask him questions.
