How is it possible that such an incredible affair has not yet been the subject of an adaptation on Netflix or Canal +? Perhaps because it is, precisely, so implausible that spectators might find the scenario far-fetched. Just imagine: three executives of a large French company are accused of having sold confidential information to Chinese companies, for tidy sums. A classic industrial espionage case? Not really. In reality, over the course of the episodes, we realize that these employees are in reality the victims of a frame-up… and that they are not the only ones. Who were they deceived by, and why? The investigators end up suspecting the practices of another direction of the company. An employee is in particular in the viewfinder, suspected of having put together this story to embezzle money.
Not really credible? And yet! This story is broadly that of the Renault affair, which broke out in 2011 and whose trial opens this Wednesday. “I ended up despairing of one day seeing this case judged,” confides Me Alexandre Varaut, lawyer for two civil parties. I have never seen such delays, it is incomprehensible. Much longer or more complex cases are heard more quickly. » Thirteen years after the events – and almost seven years after the end of the investigation – three men appear before the 11th chamber of the Paris Criminal Court. The main defendant, Dominique Gevrey, a 65-year-old former soldier, is dismissed for “fraud” and “attempted fraud”, which he denies.
An internal investigation
It all started in the summer of 2010 when several high-ranking members of the company received an anonymous letter denouncing the acceptance of bribes by two Renault executives. “Of course, it’s denunciation but I don’t care,” wrote the crow. I can’t stand to see well paid people stealing money. » The matter is all the more sensitive as the two employees in question, Michel B. and Matthieu T. are working on “THE” future project of the company: the electric car (remember, we are in 2010 ). Renault’s group protection department (DPG) immediately took up the matter and an internal investigation was entrusted to two members, Marc Tixador, a former police officer, and Dominique Gevrey.
Thanks to the help of a mysterious source, they “discovered” that the two men targeted by the missive, as well as a third executive of the company, Bertrand R., had abundant accounts abroad. In Switzerland and Liechtenstein, precisely, two countries known for their banking opacity. Above all, the informant – of whom Dominique Gevrey is the only contact – assures them that the three executives received several transfers from China and Hong Kong.
The story immediately takes on another dimension: we move from suspicions of embezzlement to that of international industrial espionage. At the beginning of January 2011, a meeting was held at the headquarters of the central directorate of internal intelligence (DCRI, formerly DGSI), then another was organized with an interministerial delegate for economic intelligence. The three employees may deny it, but they were dismissed for serious misconduct on January 11, 2011. They themselves filed a complaint for slanderous denunciation. Two days later, a report was made to the Paris public prosecutor by Renault.
Multiple inconsistencies
The investigation promises to be extraordinary. However, the DCRI, in charge of the investigations, quickly noted numerous inconsistencies in the file put together by Marc Tixador and Dominique Gevrey. Starting with the existence of these famous accounts. Both the Swiss and Liechtenstein authorities indicate that they never existed. Chinese companies where would the money come from? Unknown to the battalion. Gross errors appear in so-called transfer orders: the characters of the BIC code are out of order. In addition, the internal investigation reveals different IBANs. However, notes an expert, neither China nor Hong Kong uses this system. Marc Tixador and Dominique Gevrey refuse to communicate their documents to the authorities.
A few weeks after the opening of the investigation, there is no doubt: the three executives were trapped. Renault recognizes this and compensates them from April in exchange for their silence in the press. “My client was traumatized by this affair and he is still very marked,” insists Pierre-Olivier Sur, the lawyer for one of the three executives. He doesn’t even want to participate in the trial. Establishing this distance is a way for him to protect himself. »
But who is “the source”?
Investigations are continuing: it is now a matter of understanding what is behind this frame-up. The DCRI tries to identify the crow, then the famous “source”. Dominique Gevrey refuses to give his name, then ends up mentioning a Belgian friend, whom the investigation will show has nothing to do with this affair. In reality, according to the prosecution, this source never existed. The former soldier is suspected of having invented it to extract money from Renault, because each piece of information was billed to Renault.
Above all, during their investigations, investigators discovered other similar cases. At the beginning of 2009, three employees of the Luxembourg subsidiary were fired or forced to resign, accused of embezzlement. The famous “source” claimed to have found documents in Luxembourg attesting to this. At the end of 2009, a marketing director was accused of receiving bribes. The “source”, always the same, found alleged suspicious movements on his accounts.
318,000 euros in false invoices
Did Dominique Gevrey, like an arsonist firefighter, invent this story to extract money from his employer? He always denied it, asserting that he had only expressed “doubts” to his employer and that it was in no way proof. However, investigations revealed that a system of false invoices had been put in place. They were used, according to the defendant, to pay for information. A security consultant, indicted for “complicity” and “forgery”, admitted to having issued false invoices at the request of the former soldier and to having given him cash or made transfers. Total amount: more than 318,000 euros. And again: nearly 200,000 euros had also been invoiced, but the amounts were blocked by Renault. Marc Tixador will be tried for “complicity and concealment of violation of professional secrecy”.