After the charge of the civil parties and the public prosecutor, the defendants found a little consolation yesterday on the last day of the trial of the false furniture which is held in the Pontoise court. It is first of all the defense of Laurent Kraemer which went up to the bar. Maître Martin Reynaud underlined with great vehemence the “Disymmetry” Who strikes his client: he was refused to build up a civil party while Sotheby’s who also sold false furniture and is not implicated and that the expert Guillaume Dilée who served as an intermediary benefited from a dismissal.
After these atmosphere arguments, the one who is also the lawyer for Dimitri Rybolovlev came on the ground of law to try to show that the texts are fuzzled when it comes to showing that the antique dealer would not have accomplished all the necessary diligence to ensure the authenticity of the Delanois chairs sold to Versailles and the chairs of the Belvedere a time cousin Qatar. As the law on the offense of deception is not very explicit on the obligations in this area, it relied on the case law to show that it mainly aims at the food health and the safety of people and that it is therefore not very operating for furniture. His sister Mauricia Courégé set out to demonstrate in a very technical pleading that he was difficult even for an expert as recognized as Laurent Kraemer to realize that the chairs were false. “I’m going to tell you about wood” had she started her intervention. Both requested the release of their client.
Laurent Kraemer and the eponymous gallery are only implicated for deception on the goods while symmetrically he is not criticized for Eric Le Gouz de Saint Seine who sold a litigious chair from Jacob to Hubert Guerrand-Hermès, only a tax infraction. The expert, very discreet throughout the 5 days of the hearing, has indeed forgotten to declare the account in Switzerland on which he had filed in 2009 the committee received on the sale of the chair. His lawyer asked for the release for a date problem not covered by prevention and alternately argued a “Omission” and not “An organized laundering system”.
The afternoon was devoted to the two main defendants to whom it is accused of both a crime of deception and a tax offense. Bill Pallot, the central character of the case, having recognized the facts, tried via his two lawyers to offset the arguments of the prosecutor who required prison and fines, and civil parties who want to be reimbursed. After having made a halftone portrait of the “Magician”his lawyer pleaded the uselessness of the ban on executing her profession on the grounds that no one would now ask him to assess a piece of furniture. An argument that made smile in the room because precisely, which better than Bill Pallot has the ability to say if a piece of furniture is false or not? She also wanted to decrease the responsibility of the counterfeiter by implicating Versailles and Sotheby’s – “Professionals” Who should have realized that the furniture was false as the legal expertise recalled. A case that should have been tried in civilian and not criminal, she added.
Maître Pierre Armando made the court and the room smile a lot with his verve and his twirling pace. A challenge given the aridity of his subject: money. The money is first of all what the taxman claims to Bill Pallot for having reduced his income, under declared VAT and placed the product of sales in an account in Switzerland. His advice pleaded the prescription for 2011 income and omission for 2013 income. He tried to save the apartment of Bill Pallot (“Bought before fraud”), today seized by the tax administration and, for lack of better argument, requested indulgence for money laundering via the account in Switzerland.
The balance to pay is more important with the civil parties. If he intends to reimburse in Versailles the € 200,000 obtained on the sale in 2011 of the shepherdess via the auctioneer Thierry de Maigret, he is less going with regard to the Jacob chair sold in 2011 € 380,000 at Versailles by the age via Sotheby’s on the grounds that Sotheby’s and the Château de Versailles have signed an agreement. The challenge for Bill Pallot is to keep his apartment, being able to continue to exercise his profession as a broker and limit reimbursements.
The stake is a little different for Bruno Desnoues who retired to a small house in Normandy (he is 71 years old) with a pension of € 2,147 per month. He must above all pay his tax debt and his lawyer cleverly pleaded for his debt to be paid by what was left of the account in Switzerland by arguing above all of the personal situation of the cabinetmaker.
The judgment will be rendered on June 11, 2025.
