Le Monde, January 31, 2011
Former Defense Minister Francois Leotard will testify Monday, January 31, before Judge Marc Trévidic of his convictions on the circumstances of the attack in Karachi in 2002, that it binds to stop paying commissions decided by Jacques Chirac and a contract with India.
Mr. Leotard was a key man as defense minister Edouard Balladur, the French-contract negotiations for the sale of Pakistani Agosta submarines in 1994, where Jacques Chirac has ordered a stay of payment commission on his arrival at the Elysee in 1995.
In an article published Sunday by Rue89, the former minister said that "the attack in Karachi has been directly caused by two factors that have combined": "off commissions" and "the sale to India by the French government submarines perform better than those who had previously been delivered to Pakistan, contrary to commitments made. " According to him, Jacques Chirac, Dominique de Villepin (then secretary general of the Elysée) and Charles Millon (Defence Minister) had shown a "lightweight" by stopping these commissions.
RETALIATION
Former Minister, heard in December 2009 by the parliamentary commission on the attack in Karachi, gave his "personal feeling" of a link between these committees and stop the attack that had killed eleven employees of the Directorate shipbuilding May 8, 2002. J. Trévidic refocused its investigations in 2009 to track retaliation for unpaid commissions.
The minister could also provide insights into possible rétrocommissions political figures, testimony in the record referring to the financing of the presidential campaign of Edouard Balladur in 1995. Congressional testimony, Mr. Leotard had rejected the existence of financial malpractice, assuring that "Edouard Balladur was adamant about the rule of law and procedures."
CIVIL PART
Meanwhile, the Paris Court of Appeal ruled against the wishes of the families of victims of the terrorist who wanted to become civil parties in the financial investigation of Judge Van Ruymbeke. "If the plaintiffs allege personal injury, that injury is indirect, and the analysis is made on this point by the investigating judge can not be approved," said the investigating chamber in its ruling. According to the Court of Appeal Paris, "personal injury alleged by the plaintiffs is not directly caused by insider abuse of corporate assets."
"We will lodge an appeal against this decision," he immediately responded Me Olivier Morice, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.
0 comments:
Post a Comment