Thursday, October 2, the hearing of the Aristophil trial ended on the highly anticipated pleading of the lawyer for Gérard Lhéritier, founder of this manuscript investment company. From the outset, the defense denounced an interminable procedure: eight years have passed between the searches and the final indictment. This excessive length, underlined the lawyer Benoît Verger, helped to weaken a sick and silent defendant, “Judged fifteen years after the facts, while he is no longer the man of Aristophil”.
On the bottom, Me Verger disputed the analogy with the Ponzi system, noted by the prosecution. “There was no interest rate or fictitious income. Here, customers bought a tangible good, speculating on its future value, just like Aristophil itself ”. According to him, confusing speculation and financial cavalry is equivalent to criminalizing a market logic.
The defense insisted on the reality of the company’s stock: Sade manuscripts, Breton or rare incunable. If Aristophil bought massively, it was not to hide fragility, but to keep his collections. “Gérard Lhéritier had collector’s syndrome, not that of the crook”hammered his advice, recalling that a sales house project had been started to confront the company in the market.
With regard to misleading commercial practices, the lawyer stressed that the pre -contractual documents explicitly mentioned the absence of a guarantee of buyout and value, except in some high -end formulas where the value was guaranteed. In addition, certain wealth management advisers have created their own brochure. “And not a single email where Gérard Lhéritier validates a brochure”. Making a margin on purchasing prices, he added, is not an offense: “No antique dealer reveals her acquisition prices”.
Finally, on the intention, the defense recalled that the heir invested his own funds, including his earnings at Euromillions, in Aristophil. “No crook binds his personal fortune in his alleged scam”pleaded me. In conclusion, the lawyer asked for the release, believing that the accused grievances – organized gang scam, misleading commercial practices, breach of confidence … – do not hold legally. “If there is, it is civilian, not criminal”he said, referring to the volatility of valuations on the art market.
Lawyers from other defendants have registered in the same logic of displacement of responsibilities. The lawyer for law professor Jean-Jacques Daigre, Me Nathalie Schmelck, recalled that her consultations written from 2006 for Amadeus contracts, and only them (not co-alys joint contracts), said black on white that the buyout depended “If you want to society”. “The clause was clear, the perversity being in marketing, not in writing”she insisted. Same logic for Me Gautry, notary, whose lawyer has hammered that “It was not at 61 that he would have embraced a career as a delinquent”recalling that he had never had contact with the 18,000 investors.
The defendants from the commercial network (Jean-Jacques Itard, Michel Perronnet, Philippe Samson) have also rejected any desire for fraud. Their lawyer, François Saint-Pierre, described men “Broken by ten years of procedure”forced to stop all activity after the seizures. Seduced by the charisma of Gérard Lhéritier and reassured by his figures, they would have believed in good faith in the model: “There were no red lights for them, only the seduction of a man inserted in the cultural world and the prospect of a booming market”.
The defense of Jean-Claude Vrain, expert in manuscripts, insisted on the lack of direct link with the incriminated contracts. “He has never done expertise to sell Aristophil products”pleaded Antoine Vey. His insurance value assessments were intended for Lloyd’s insurers in London, not for subscribers. As for the prices deemed excessive, its advice have put into perspective by invoking market volatility: “Who would have predicted that a Picasso would multiply its price by 100 in 10 years, or that the Salvator Mundi would reach 450 million euros after not having found a lessee for free at 50 million? »»
At the end of the arguments, all the defenses concluded that the qualification of a gang is qualified as a scam organized as that of deceptive commercial practices. The case was deliberated. The judgment will be rendered on December 11.
