(Paris) He pretended to be the nephew of Brigitte Macron, had usurped the name of the directors of the Elysée’s cabinets to obtain a VIP welcome or luxury services, a 35-year-old man appeared before the criminal court on Tuesday from Paris.
In front of the 13th room, the defendant admitted to having created in spring 2018, via the internet host OVH, a false email address: dircab@presidence-française.fr.
He signed his consignments as Pierre-Olivier Costa, chief of staff of Brigitte Macron, or of Patrick Strzoda, chief of staff of Emmanuel Macron, who became a civil party.
And asked, supposedly on behalf of the nephew of the first lady, specific services: a VIP welcome in a luxury hotel in Morocco, seats for a Formula 1 grand prix in Melbourne or a Club 2000 card from ‘Air France.
The defendant was appearing until Wednesday, with an accomplice, for identity theft, attempted fraud, fraud, legal recidivism since he had been convicted of similar facts in September 2014.
Most of these attempts were unsuccessful, following verifications carried out by the companies concerned.
Only the French embassy in Bangladesh and the Hong Kong hotel Hupper House did not uncover the deception. Presenting himself as the nephew of Brigitte Macron, the defendant was able to visit a Rohingya refugee camp, meet with the ambassador herself and benefit, a few days later, from an upgrade in the luxury hotel located in Hong Kong.
Facing the court on Tuesday, the defendant admitted to being attracted by “the status, the prestige, the privileges”. He denies having acted “for the money” or “to do harm”.
“During my childhood, lying was part of everyday life. I ran away at 17 and I started to invent a life scenario for myself to create a kind of distortion compared to my life before, ”he said.
His accomplice is also on trial for using the fake email addresses to obtain luxury clothes, hotel upgrades, or even the loan of a Tesla electric car supposed to be intended for the first lady. This latest fraud attempt led to her being arrested on May 2, 2018.
About this accomplice, the defendant assured that “she had an address book, which could facilitate the approach”, but that they “did not have the same appetites for the purposes”.