The actress with five Césars, Isabelle Adjani was tried Thursday, October 19 in Paris in her absence for aggravated tax fraud and money laundering, a case in which the court will rule on December 14.
THE “loan from a friend“, a “error“, or a desire to “illegally save on taxes“? Actress Isabelle Adjani was tried Thursday, October 19 in Paris in her absence for aggravated tax fraud and money laundering, a case in which the court will rule on December 14.
The National Financial Prosecutor’s Office (PNF) requested against her 18 months in prison with suspended probation and a fine of 250,000 euros, with immediate execution, as well as two years of ineligibility. The defense pleaded for acquittal, responding with a version “poles apart” of the accusation.
Savings “on your taxes” not “on your lifestyle”
The audience stretched until late in the evening without the 68-year-old actress and singer who was in the United States. His defense requested the postponement of the trial, invoking in particular a “acute pathology“but the court rejected this request, saying it doubted”the real intention” of the actress to come to the stand.
The president recounted at length, in an almost empty room, the investigation opened in 2016 after the appearance of Isabelle Adjani’s name in the Panama Papers. Revelations which ultimately led to no prosecution, but brought to light other suspicions. “His celebrity was neither an additional reason nor an obstacle to prosecution. Before being a public figure, she is a citizen subject to duties“, assured the financial prosecutor as he began his indictment.
Isabelle Adjanisought, quite systematically, to reduce her taxes between 2013 and 2017 and, instead of legally making savings on her lifestyle (…) she chose to illegally make savings on her taxes“, reprimanded the magistrate. For the prosecution, the actress had her main home, her professional activity and her centers of economic activity in France, and not in Portugal, in 2016 and 2017: she should therefore have paid 236,000 euros of income tax in France.
“Disguised donation”
Furthermore, according to the financial prosecutor’s office, the two million euros paid in 2013 by the Senegalese businessman and member of the International Olympic Committee Mamadou Diagna NDiaye were not a loan, but a “disguised donation“. The loan contract signed between them, which included neither interest nor guarantee, was “fictional” and allowed the actress to evade 1.2 million euros in transfer taxes, prosecutors argued.
The National Financial Prosecutor’s Office finally requested that she be found guilty of money laundering for having received 119,000 euros from an offshore company into an American bank account.undeclared“, a sum then transferred to Portugal.
One of the defense lawyers, Stéphane Babonneau, retraced the journey of “one of the greatest French actresses“, believing that “no, Isabelle Adjani was not treated like an ordinary litigant“.”Whatever she does, she is wrong!” he was indignant, denouncing the “trial of intent” and the “beliefs” of the prosecution. He asserted that “everything was gone“from 2013, the year when it was set up”a spiral” for the actress: her company Isia Films was then “emptied of 800,000 euros“due to a”scam“, the company targeted by a “recovery“like Isabelle Adjani”personally“.
“Trust betrayed”
“In a context of very significant financial distress“, “in depression“, she has “found help“near his”friend“Mamadou Diagna NDiaye, the”godfather of heart“from his son, via a”loan declared” that she had “10 years” to repay, argued the lawyer.
Concerning his tax residence, “she was wrong because she followed the advice she was given“, assured the council, recalling that she had paid the sums due via a transaction with the tax authorities. The lawyer further argued that the 119,000 euros had been transferred by “his Geneva lawyer“and used”to make a donation to the family of her housekeeper, so that she can acquire property in Portugal“.”He is someone who trusts and sees his trust betrayed, he is not at all someone who will try to defraud“, added Me Olivier Pardo, estimating that the audience, “without Isabelle Adjani, without Mr. NDiaye, imposes acquittal“.