A former intelligence chief faces allegations of orchestrating extensive surveillance against journalist François Ruffin and his colleagues from 2013 to 2016, allegedly for LVMH. In court, Bernard Squarcini defended his actions, claiming he was misled about threats to LVMH, while Ruffin vehemently criticized the disproportionate measures taken against his non-violent reporting efforts. The case has drawn attention, particularly with Bernard Arnault expected to testify, raising questions about corporate accountability and press freedom.
Confrontation in Court: Two Opposing Views
In a gripping courtroom drama, a former intelligence chief claims to have been misled, while a deputy and ex-journalist criticizes the extensive surveillance measures employed against him. The Paris court witnessed a clash between Bernard Squarcini and François Ruffin as they presented their contrasting narratives on Friday.
“Semantics matter; we need to clarify our terminology,” stated President Benjamin Blanchet, encapsulating the essence of the discussions that have unfolded since the trial commenced on November 13. Bernard Squarcini, who once led the Central Directorate of Internal Intelligence (DCRI, now DGSI), stands accused of orchestrating a sophisticated surveillance operation targeting Ruffin and his colleagues at the newspaper Fakir from 2013 to 2016, allegedly on behalf of the luxury brand LVMH during the filming of the documentary ‘Merci, patron!’.
The Defense’s Argument
On the witness stand, Squarcini unfolded his account: in March 2013, shortly after transitioning to the private sector, he received alarming communications from Bernard Arnault’s secretary and his assistant, warning about the potential disruptions to the LVMH general assembly posed by Fakir’s activities. Just days later, former police officer turned private investigator, Hervé Séveno, presented him with a supposed insider within Fakir.
“I found myself between someone who exaggerated the threat and the commercial expectations placed upon me,” Squarcini explained, justifying his actions to please his new client. Nonetheless, he firmly denied that any infiltrator was involved at Fakir, dismissing claims of a man who was quickly disregarded by the team and a woman who later claimed to be a photographer.
Despite repeated inquiries from the court, Squarcini insisted he was unaware of Séveno’s collaboration with Jean-Charles Brisard, a consultant specializing in terrorism, who was also linked to a supposed informant within the newspaper. He downplayed his reliance on the information provided by Séveno, describing it as largely unhelpful and sometimes inaccurate.
The relationship between Squarcini and Séveno was formalized in a contract in 2014, resulting in a staggering 2.2 million euros billed to LVMH by Squarcini, with an additional 450,000 euros charged by Séveno.
When questioned about his awareness of the situation, Squarcini acknowledged the possibility of being misled but maintained that he had no recollection of crucial conversations, including one where Séveno mentioned a “partnership with friend Brisard.”
“I do not recall this conversation. I was entirely unaware of the underlying actions,” he reiterated.
François Ruffin’s Perspective
As the narrative shifted, François Ruffin took the stand, injecting a different energy into the proceedings. “The stance taken by me and Fakir is one of non-violence,” he declared with vigor, emphasizing the power of words as his only weapon throughout his career. Ruffin, who became a deputy in 2017, pointed out that the defendants initially trivialized Fakir as a “joke.” “I question how we move from ‘happy fellows’ to this level of disproportionate response involving three economic intelligence agencies, 2 million euros, infiltration, and privacy invasion!” he exclaimed.
Ruffin recounted his experience at the LVMH AGM in April 2013, where his group was sidelined, prompting his concerns. As they filmed ‘Merci Patron!’, he humorously referred to the situation as “James Bond in the North.”
He described receiving enigmatic SMS messages, “photo boards,” and intrusive details about his private life, labeling the situation as “the absurdity of a far darker puzzle” regarding Arnault’s recurring actions against the press. “It’s a scandal that he’s not among the defendants,” Ruffin added, criticizing the Public Interest Judicial Convention (CJIP) of 10 million euros that LVMH signed to evade the case.
Bernard Arnault is set to testify as a witness on Thursday, adding further intrigue to this unfolding legal saga.