Credits: Laurent Vu / Ministry of Culture and Communication, CC BY-SA 3.0 FR.
At the Paris Criminal Court, Renault’s lawyers and anti-corruption associations questioned Rachida Dati on Thursday, September 24. They asked her what work justified 900,000 euros in fees. The former Minister of Justice is defending legal work abroad. Prosecutors see it as payment for actions tied to her European Parliament mandate. She is contesting the charges in this ongoing trial, with closing arguments expected on Monday, September 28.
A Consulting Contract Worth 300,000 Euros a Year
Opened on September 16, the trial concerns an agreement signed in late 2009 with RNBV. This Dutch company in the Renault-Nissan alliance was then headed by Carlos Ghosn. The agreement provided for annual fees of 300,000 euros. Rachida Dati received a total of 900,000 euros between 2010 and 2012, while she was serving in the European Parliament.
The National Financial Prosecutor’s Office (PNF) argues that the contract concealed payment meant to defend the automaker’s interests before European institutions. The defense says, on the contrary, that the sums corresponded to legal work. At the opening of the trial, her lawyers reiterated to AFP that her work for RNBV fell exclusively within that profession.
The former minister is being prosecuted in particular for passive corruption and passive influence peddling. The charges also include concealment of abuse of authority and breach of trust. Concealment here refers to the suspicion of knowingly benefiting from funds derived from offenses. Carlos Ghosn, who lives in Lebanon, is being tried in his absence. Both deny the allegations and remain presumed innocent.
International Missions Put To Renault’s Questions
Thursday morning, Renault’s lawyers, Philippe Goossens and Kami Haeri, asked Rachida Dati to clarify her involvement. They also questioned the evidence used to establish that it actually took place. Renault says it bore half the fees, or 450,000 euros, with Nissan paying the other half. The company is seeking compensation for the harm it claims.
On Turkey, Rachida Dati says she sought to protect the group’s interests against the consequences of a boycott targeting France. The context was the tensions sparked by the French debate over criminalizing denial of the Armenian genocide. She defends the usefulness of her discussions with diplomatic contacts.
On Iran, Kami Haeri questioned her about the specific effects of international sanctions and the risks facing Renault’s operations. The defendant points to her contacts and to collective work. The lawyer disputes the substance of the material produced to support her explanations. The exchanges became so heated that the presiding judge briefly suspended the hearing to restore calm.
In Morocco, the dispute notably concerns the Tangier plant. Renault’s lawyer points out that agreements already existed before her involvement. Rachida Dati replies that she was supposed to oversee their implementation and the release of funding. She also says she helped expand the purpose of a training center.
The lack of sufficient written records, denounced by Renault’s lawyers, is thus a point of contention. Rachida Dati counters with the people she met and the testimony she cites in support of her missions. It is up to the court to assess the significance of these elements.
Written Questions In The European Parliament In The Debate
The exchanges also focused on a note sent to Carlos Ghosn in July 2012. This note concerns the rollout of electric vehicle charging stations in the European Union. It mentions the possibility of submitting a written question to the European Commission.
Claire Josserand-Schmidt, Anticor’s lawyer, confronted Rachida Dati with this document. She asked her why she proposed this parliamentary tool while downplaying its significance during the trial. The defendant replied that she distinguished between the value of a question and its lack of legal effect. The day before, she had already denied asking questions at the automaker’s request.
This aspect raises the distinction between a private service and the exercise of a public mandate. In its presentation of the case, Transparency International France details the proceedings as a civil party. The association notes that holding a mandate and a paid activity at the same time is not, by itself, an offense. It emphasizes that the criminal dispute concerns what the payments were actually meant to cover.
The defense argues, for its part, that the actions described fell within a lawyer’s duties. Called as a witness Thursday afternoon, former bar association president Me. Sicard described those duties. He defended the possibility for a lawyer to provide consulting services and secure international contracts. This position runs counter to the PNF’s view, which suspects payments in return for actions tied to the European Parliament mandate.
Closing Arguments Expected On Monday, September 28
The civil parties began their closing arguments Thursday late in the afternoon. The trial is due to resume Monday, September 28, in the morning with the National Financial Prosecutor’s Office’s closing arguments, followed by the defense’s.
The prosecution will then present the conclusions it draws from the proceedings and the penalties it is seeking, if any. Its closing arguments will not be a verdict: the court alone will decide any guilt and any sentence.