In June 2020, PC, a company manager, was the subject of a denunciation to the public finance services: to thank his accountant for having helped him to defraud, he allegedly offered him a Rolex watch to more than 20 dollars five years earlier. The prosecution entrusts the investigation to the research section of Saint-Martin.
The investigations will only relate to the conditions of acquisition of the luxury watch. They reveal that PC bought it but that the name on the jewel's warranty certificate is that of SF, a friend of PC. Then discovering that SF reimbursed PC for the watch in cash, investigators suspect SF of money laundering (while the anonymous person accused PC). They ask him about the source of this cash. SF claims to have won at the casino several times; to prove it, he asks for certificates of earnings from the director of the establishment. HM provides him with two documents justifying a gain of 10 dollars and another of 000 euros. But the investigators and the prosecution will consider that these attestations are false, that PC and HM have helped SF to conceal the money.
Prosecuted for money laundering and / or forgery and / or use of forgery, PC, SF and HM were summoned to the local court of Saint-Martin on November 21. The public prosecutor requested fines of 3, 000 and 5 euros against HM, SF and PC respectively.
But the court of Saint-Martin declared itself incompetent to rule on the facts of money laundering and forgery and acquitted SF of the facts of use of forgery. As a lawyer pointed out, the alleged facts took place in part Dutch: the watch was handed over by PC to SF in part French but it was bought in a shop in Philipsburg. As well as the certificates of winning at the casino have been completed in part Dutch. However, according to French law, a court cannot judge people for facts which took place outside the national territory.
6,921 total views
No comments