During Nicolas Sarkozy’s appeal trial in the Bygmalion case, the former President of the Republic contested any “criminal responsibility” in the case.
Nicolas Sarkozy back in court. The former head of state was heard by the judges this Friday as part of the appeal trial in the Bygmalion case. And he was categorical. “I vigorously contest any criminal liability because I had no knowledge of the fraud,” he declared at the start of his speech at the bar.
The trial, which began on November 8 at the Paris Court of Appeal, concerns excessive spending by his presidential campaign in 2012. In a brief statement, the ex-president recalled having “assumed his political responsibility,” when the Constitutional Council refused “to reimburse a cent” of his lost 2012 campaign. “I assumed this responsibility, by finding 10.5 million euros from the people who love me, that’s what which was called the ‘Sarkothon’. This allows me to say that my campaign cost the taxpayer nothing”, he affirmed in front of the judges.
Nicolas Sarkozy is retried alongside nine other people who appealed, partially or in full, their conviction in September 2021. He faces, for “illegal campaign financing”, one year in prison and 3,750 euros in fines. fine. The man who was sentenced at first instance to one year in prison, subject to an electronic bracelet, has always “vigorously contested any criminal responsibility”, he repeated before the court of appeal.
“Because I deny, and I hope to demonstrate, that I have never been aware of fraud, never requested fraud or even benefited from fraud. As noted by the investigating judge “, he clarified, before the start of his interrogation. “If I did not order, participate, if I was not informed, then where is the crime?” asked Nicolas Sarkozy.
Justice accuses him of having let the accounts of his presidential campaign slip away in 2012 despite warnings. This cost nearly 43 million euros, when the legal ceiling was set at 22.5 million euros. It was to hide this exceeding of the legal ceiling that a system of false invoices was put in place, according to the investigation. The criminal court had underlined in its judgment that the former head of state had “continued to organize” electoral meetings, “requesting one meeting per day”, even though he “had been warned in writing” of the risk exceedance authorized by law.
