In a landmark trial, Bernard Squarcini, former intelligence chief in France, was sentenced to four years, two under house arrest, for using state resources to assist LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton, including an illicit surveillance operation targeting journalist François Ruffin. The case highlights intricate ties between corporate power and former state officials.
Former French Intelligence Chief Sentenced Over LVMH Surveillance Scandal
Former French Intelligence Chief Sentenced Over LVMH Surveillance Scandal
Bernard Squarcini, ex-head of France's intelligence agency, has been convicted for illegally aiding luxury giant LVMH in a covert operation against a journalist.
In a closely watched case, Bernard Squarcini, the former chief of France’s intelligence agency, has been found guilty of leveraging his position to aid LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton, a major player in the luxury goods sector. The Paris court handed down a four-year sentence, split between two years of house arrest and a two-year suspension, alongside a substantial fine of 200,000 euros, equivalent to about 217,000 dollars. Squarcini's legal team has vowed to appeal the verdict.
The court's findings reveal a disturbing connection between Squarcini and LVMH as he facilitated a controversial illegal surveillance operation against François Ruffin, a journalist known for his critical stance towards the luxury conglomerate, particularly surrounding his attempt to produce a documentary in 2012 that examined the company's practices and its influential CEO, Bernard Arnault.
While LVMH itself was not a defendant in this trial, the proceedings took an unexpected twist when Judge demanded that Bernard Arnault appear as a witness. Under oath, Arnault characterized his leadership journey in transforming LVMH from a modest firm to the largest luxury brand entity globally, boasting an empire that now supports 200,000 employees across 75 brands. He maintained that he had no knowledge of any surveillance operations related to Ruffin.
The trial involved nine additional defendants, primarily consisting of civil servants, police officers, and consultants, with two acquitted following the proceedings. This case illuminates the concerning entanglements between corporate interests and state machinery, raising pertinent questions about accountability and ethical standards among those in power.
