July August 2018



There is a lot to tell about the couple Escaut/Escaut-Marquets involvement in the civil and criminal errands which this website is trying to enlighten for its many readers. One can see the presence of this couple in almost any document from 2004 and pertaining to this scandal – or rather this row of scandals – that indeed has emerged much because of said couple.

Be it known, that Mrs Bailiff Marie-Thérèse Escaut-Marquet, who is omnipresent in almost the totality of these criminal affairs on an international scale, holds various functions within the Principality.

She has (or had 2004) a great influence over the real estate market, deals with most of Monaco’s auction sales (Monaco has only two bailiffs) and not least regarding sales of jewelery, art and antiques. In her position as a bailiff, she has heavy / huge responsibilities within her key (sic) position one which cannot and will not tolerate the slightest suspicion linked to any an illegal act committed by her.

Nevertheless, and regrettably,

False statements towards a foreign Government in the sole aim of covering up for the initial and ongoing crimes of one another is something extremely serious.

In one of the attached documents pertaining to the Staples, marker pen and IT-bug Affair, case nr 10 on Bimcam, the incriminated bailiff speaks about “her client” (the now convicted swindler), but uses the head stationary of her incriminated husband, lawyer Didier Escaut, while she orders a payment of 12.000,00 (twelve thousand) Euros to be put into her own account within 48 (forty-eight) hours or she would take all Mr Fristedts belongings. It was instead Mrs Monica Fristedt’s belongings they took.

This is what one should bear in mind:

1. The order to pay money is written on the head stationary of lawyer and bailiff’s husband Didier Escaut.

2. The order is written in the first person, singular: I/me = The bailiff Escaut-Marquet.

3. But, considering the crazy contents, the way it is written (the 48 hour delay, devoid of account number) and in light of the “Swedish” translations, one can suspect that the “author” is the swindler herself, but – as usually – approved through the so called “official” stamps.

Marie-Thérèse Escaut-Marquet & Didier Escaut

Marie-Thérèse Escaut-Marquet & Didier Escaut

Due to new unlawful events initiated by some persons in Monaco during the summer holidays of 2011, with clear intention to mislead the Swedish authorities once again (!) the following excerpts below have become more than relevant, but have been shortened pending further information. The only result they have achieved so far is that of making a mockery of Monaco and that of introducing new readers to Bimcam, not least from the Indian Ocean island of La Réunion, east of Madagascar.

Herewith follows extracts of a complaint from Mr David Fristedt to Monacos Chief Prosecutor at the time, Mr Daniel SERDET, dated 29th of April 2005 (attachment nr 2 in the letter to Chief Prosecutor DRENO, case nr10 on Bimcam’s main page, entitled The Staples, marker pen and IT-bug Affair).

The document with the discovery of repeated and continuing crimes of all kind emerged during several days during which the incriminated bailiff filled David Fristedt’s mailbox in his domicile and residence in Sweden, with similar documents one after the other and with the most hilarious Swedish translations, a little different each time. It was alleged in writing that the Chief Prosecutor were to have been the signatory of such lunacies containing blackmail (still ongoing).

The bailiff Escaut-Marquet wrote that an official version of the claims would come later on from the Chief Prosecutor’s office…

David Fristedt filed a criminal complaint ad hoc, immediately returning to the Chief Prosecutor, Daniel Serdet, the nonsense sent to the Swedish Government, asking him to make an investigation.

Said investigation has stood still ever since, and six years later, the fourth Chief Prosecutor in the Affair, Mr Dreno, has been summoned to finally act. Only now, year 2011, have some of the incriminated individuals started to become seriously worried – or even desperate, in view of the latest events of fall 2011 – not least after having discovered this website.

In David Fristedt’s complaint of 2005, the reader will learn about two trips to Cannes, France, that the now convicted swindler and her lawyer Didier Escaut made to meet with a Finnish (!) (not Swedish) translator.

The Finnish translator stated that no request had been formulated by the Prosecution’s Office in Monaco or by any other authority to said translator…

See below what a telephone call can tell.

Translation into English from the excerpts of the original French letter of Mr David Fristedt with criminal complaint to Chief Prosecutor Daniel Serdet, 29 April 2005:


1/12 [of the original]

Monsieur le Procureur Général (Mr Chief Prosecutor)
Daniel Serdet
Parquet de Monaco
5, Rue Colonel Bellando de Castro

LR/AR [Recommended letter with acknowledgement of receipt]

Re: My previous envoys; additions and comments

Mister Chief Prosecutor,

Last summer, I asked You to prevent the bailiff Escaut-Marquet from causing further nuisance / harm. The damages that I, others and Monaco suffer continuously had after the present inactions been foreseen. I hope that regarding the said bailiff, You will have taken the required measures.

Last 6th of April, I sent You a copy by fax of a letter addressed to Court Registrar Mr Thierry Dalmasso […].

The “IT-bug”, staples and marker pen affair

The headline above refers to a registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt that was sent to me, with the impossibility to give power of attorney for third party to sign the receipt, by the Swedish Government’s Office. The initial sender is unknown to me. Bailiff Escaut-Marquet’s stamp has been put on top of her husband’s head stationary. Convenient. But what if the envoy comes from the Court (from the incriminated judge?) or from lawyer Escaut or his wife, and if they know what one or the other has sent is something that I and the Swedish Government are unaware of […].

But before awaiting your investigation of the complaint that followed as a result, someone has sent an incredible translation to the Swedish Government’s Office, repeating the false statements and slanders, but above all, wrongly accusing my mother, on an international level, of things that require a diplomatic denial, apart from what I may and shall claim in due time. Indeed, and considering that the name of Monica Fristedt does not figure in any ordinance / ruling, lawyer Didier Escaut has in writing claimed that my mother be a delinquent (assault during the lock changes of the apartment that she rented and rents). But [even worse a false statement] according to the “translation”, the Swedish Government has been able to read that my mother were to have committed voluntary acts of violence a.k.a. “voluntary assault and battery”. This warrants Your denial.

A certain Mari-Ann DEQUEKER, a so called authorized translator and supposedly accredited as such before the Court of Appeals of Aix-en-Provence, France, seems to have translated the enclosed documents, despite her obviously not speaking a word of Swedish. It looks like a forgery; a translation made by [the since convicted swindler] in a moment of despair. But this mattered not: lurking bailiff Escaut-Marquet was as always there to “validate”, stamp in hand. […] I also ask you to provide me with the name of the demander of the so called translation, who exported the scandal to the Government of Sweden.

Considering that the translation is as monstrous as incredible as a whole, I shall herewith translate certain extracts, in order for You to grasp the magnitude of what has been sent to the Government of a foreign country. Just as in my school in Monaco-Ville, I hereby make use of a red pen, so that You be able to distinguish certain remarks made by myself as of today, and in light of certain colouring practices (Cf. infra, the staples and marker pen affair) In light of the number of papers in disorder, I leave it for You to classify the “translated” documents; and leave it for You to imagine what the Swedish Government may will have deducted from it Some copies have been made both sides. Every page containing text is hereby numbered by myself, so as to make Your reading all easier.

Considering the impossibility to understand anything whatsoever,

Envoy received by the Swedish Government

Page nr 1
Ordonnans.- Means in Swedish, according to the Swedish Academy, the only valid reference, soldier or superior with mission to see to that job notes be dealt with etc.

Tie.- Slang for ten. […] [Tie is a phonetic pronunciation of the word tio. No one would never ever put it in writing]

Page nr 2
Hovrätten.- Means Royal Court.

Advokats stånd.- […] This cannot be a typing error from the so called translator.

Page nr 5
BORGMASTAHUSET.- Would eventually mean, had the spelling been correct, THE MAYOR’S HOUSE, or his / her little “home, sweet home”. But in no way does it mean that of the words town hall.

Page nr 6
Lé te vaningen.- Means nothing in Swedish, but is supposed to refer to a certain apartment.

Betyg.- Means grades, as if our marriage had been graded, for example, on a scale of twenty, as in school.

Page nr 7
Som insätter sig i behov av dessa föreliggande och deras följder.- This has no Swedish meaning whatsoever.

STAMNING.- Means stammering/stuttering. NB: In the context, the headline means CONFESSION OF STAMMERING / STUTTERING AS GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE. In other words, she asks for divorce because of her stammering / stuttering.

Page nr 8
ANKLAGADE.- Means criminally accused. Herewith noted: the Swedish Government [falsely] learns that I am criminally wanted in Monaco. I consider this as something particularly serious, and await a diplomatic denial in no time [still waiting, fall 2011].

NYTTIG AUDIENS.- Means meaningful hearing, or healthy hearing.

FÖR MER ÄN ETT AR HAR MAKARNAS SITUATION FÖRNEDRATS.- Would eventually mean for more than a year, the spouses’ situation has been humiliated.

Page nr 9
DEN FÖRSTA I VARJE MÅNAD ANVISA TILL HENNES HEM.- Completely untranslatable, since it means nothing. I give it a try for You: “the first of every month assign to her house”.

Page nr 11
AV DESSA SKAL.– Means BECAUSE OF THESE PEELINGS / BARKS. You will have noticed that this is a headline, just as was the case regarding the word “ordonnans”. 

NB: The claims of economic order will be dealt with according to the laid criminal charges to follow: in no way do I engage in any argument with the criminals at stake.
You will kindly note, also, my red arrow, below, on the right side of the page, concerning the erasure of the mysterious translator.

You will by now have seen for Yourself, Mister Chief Prosecutor, that I have but demonstrated a small part of these tales. But it’s already enough for anyone to understand the importance of making sure that some be prevented from causing further damage, for the investigation’s sake, among other reasons, but also out of preventive concerns, on top of the continuous harmful effects on Monaco’s image.

Today, I had the Court of Appeals of Aix-en-Provence be called for me, and said Court confirms that Mrs DEQUEKER, who supposedly would be practicing in Cannes, is not entitled to translate whatsoever as of year 2005. The same Court let me understand that it was unfortunately quite frequent for some to illegally call themselves experts before this or that Court. I count on You to remedy this minute to said situation, contacting for example the President of the Court of Appeals of Aix-en-Provence, Mr […], because indeed, nuisances to public order there are, albeit this time through three different countries. The word “tie”, for example, ought to mean “tio”, which means ten. In slang, one says tie, but it would never occur for anyone in their right mind to write it down. This was, if You would kindly note, a question that had been asked by [the convicted swindler] when she was, supposedly, taking Swedish lessons in Stockholm. The Court of Aix-en-Provence in no time let us ponder the fact that we very well be confronted with forgeries. The telephone number that the Court gave me rings like a fax. But at least, it has been proven that the translations were illegal (Cf. infra).

The following comments will be the subject of a specific numbering for Your very attention, starting with page number fourteen, and still mentioned in red within the enclosed documents.

Envoy received by Monaco’s Consul [in Sweden] by Ministerial ways.

Before the magnitude of the persistent scandal, devoid of brakes, and considering the damage that I am suffering, among others, I have received [postal] mails on top of one another. When the sender is signed Escaut-Marquet, I can never tell whether it is she, her husband or the Court that is sending me such or such twaddle. It turned hence out convenient to have my signing an envoy from the Swedish Government. But since I could not respond favourably to it, some took it to ignore it and move on even further, not least by use of a minister, and – furthermore – via Monaco’s consul, without mentioning the envoys on the Minister of State’s [Patrick Leclercq] desk and, by his own volition, that of the Director of Judicial Affairs [Allain Guillou, at the time], only to finally have a Court Registrar sending me an envoy by simple letter. A noted proceeding. I want to stress the fact that none of this would have happened had one put an end to the public disorders. I refer herewith to my letter to the Court Registrar, Mr Dalmasso.

The mail from the aforementioned Consul consists in a content similar to the one I had just acknowledged reception of, two days before a certain trial to be held, and with an order to pay within forty-eight hours sums of money that only constitute the repetition of already committed crimes albeit involving from now on the wife of the instigator’s lawyer. As you know, the Consul found it wise to call me more than once. But it is only whilst opening a letter from him addressed to my mother (with her permission and with my intuition) that I were to discover the letter from the implicated minister, […] (CT Nr 2005-00935 and CT Nr 2005-00932). […]

I would appreciate Your telling me who the person behind Mr Imperti’s action is. In fact, this constitutes a formal request.

As if this was not enough, if one is to believe the contents, the action against my person supposedly emanates from Yourself (and I do note the absence of signature) as far as the two demands are concerned: the summoning within short delay and the order to pay money. Should this be the case, then the reason for the scandal would have been found out.

To what the consul sent me was added yet another monstrosity of a translation. I give You herewith some examples, apart from those that my red penned slashes or crosses already will have demonstrated.

You will note that the documents hereby are being sent back to you as originals, in order for You to see the use of the marker pen. I moreover ask you to let me know the author of the colourings. Because indeed, by simple photocopy, this cannot be seen. When taking into consideration my letter to Mr Dalmasso, You will see the number of staple holes. I ask you to investigate these matters of fact and to let me know the route / itinerary of the letter at stake. So I send you thus the originals, safe for the minister’s correspondence, with – on top of these very originals – my red-penned remarks for Your attention.

Page nr 14
EN BESTAMD KORT TID.– With a correct spelling, this would mean, or I would read it as “A SHORT, CERTAIN MOMENT”.

ATT STAMMA I EN KORT BESTAMD TID.- Again, this is quite some nonsense, but I herby give You my most plausible translation: “TO STAMMER / STUTTER IN A SHORT, SPECIFIC FRAME OF TIME”.

Höghuset.- Means “the skyscraper”. In order for the Château Périgord 1 to accurately be described in Swedish, such term would not be used even by people with highly limited knowledge of the Swedish language.

The rest of the page becomes obviously obsolete due to lack of direct object. In other words, it’s just plain nonsense.

Page nr 16
UTMATNINGSMAN.- Could refer to the peasant of masculine sex that feeds the creatures.

Page nr 17
HAR STAMT.- This is hardly Swedish.

MONACO-STAD.- We are here faced with an exploit / writ of total ignorance. It is here being referred to Monaco-Ville, which in itself is a name of a Monegasque area. But in this case, it’s just as if I would have translated Rio de Janeiro by The January River.

Page nr 18



Mister Chief Prosecutor,

The above facts that have been described for Your attention should be an alarming concern of Yours, or at least have Your taking some action. However, whilst writing you this, apparently, there are news to be dealt with. This letter started on 25 April 2005. Yesterday, the 26th, I had to rest; but not without informing Your secretary of the fact that I had news within the ongoing criminal matters.

Indeed, and considering my intuitions that have found me well as those described above so far, plus my demand addressed to Yourself to investigate the demander, he or she or the demanders – in the plural – of the abject translations that are ever so detrimental towards any another, I have finally managed to get into direct telephone contact with the so called translator. This contact, undertaken by means of delegation from my part, appears to me to indeed be rich in information. […]

Summary of the telephone conversation established between my delegate and Mrs Mari-Anne DUQUEKER.

A direct telephone contact was successfully established today the 26th of April 2005 thanks to the Court of Appeals of Aix-en-Provence, in France. The conversation started in Swedish, as a test, but ended up in French, for reasons of comprehension. Mrs DUQUEKER is obviously of Finnish nationality. At first hand, she didn’t recall the translation as such. It was whilst asking her to provide the receipts of the translations that her memory came back. Indeed, she was asked this within tax issues, after her being informed of the Court of Appeals of Aix-en Provence’s affirmation regarding her being allowed no longer to translate. She claims not having kept any traces (copies) of her work, due to lack of computer (which was clearly visible). She was informed of the possibility to ask for a copy from the demander / client. It was further on suggested to her that it be impossible for her to having been the author of the translations put into question. But rather, that she may have had help from [the since convicted swindler]. Indeed were there to be certain words, “tie”, for example, that caught my attention. It seems as if [the since convicted swindler] presented her with her own translation, in order for Mrs DUQUEKER to endorse it through competitive discount by means of her stamp (sic), followed, finally, by that of bailiff Escaut-Marquet. Notable is the fact that [the since convicted swindler] took it to travel to “the translator” all the way to Cannes with her lawyer [Didier Escaut]. Twice. I take it that this would suggest quite some unnecessary lawyer’s costs. Has there been any under-the-table transaction? It sure looks so. But considering the shape of the envoys that were sent to me, with the many staple holes, everyone thinks that it is You, Mister Chief Prosecutor, who is behind the demand for these translations. Or Mr Rainier Imperti. Yet as You know, I speak French fluently. Therefore, I cannot see the utility in turning to any a translator in the first place.

I would also appreciate Your wanting to really investigate the true reasons for Lawyer Escaut’s and [the since convicted swindler’s] trips to Cannes. I believe something very fishy to be going on. Did lawyer Escaut take the initiative, or did he have to follow her for any an unknown motive? This seems to me like a highly interesting topic.

Here are the contact details of the so called translator: (subject to errors since the address only has been communicated to me via telephone) [verified as correct since]

Le […]
06400 Cannes
Tel : + 33 4 […]

The stolen goods


How could this happen?


Previous criminal complaints; additions

Without entering the details, I seriously believe that bailiff Escaut-Marquet has everything to gain from her lawyer husband and his client, whereas I consequently point her out as suspect / responsible number one with regards to the blackmail attempt of the three hundred thousand (300.000,00) Euros, and also point her out as the one having been and being in charge so far of any other crime connected to this affair.

This merely constitutes a spontaneous concentration of intelligence.

Yours sincerely,

[…], 29 April 2005
David Fristedt
[Address, tel. & fax]

Attached documents:

– Your exemplar in original by fax for the attention of Court Registrar Mr Thierry DALMASSO, also sent by fax to Your very self (4 [four] pages);
– Private or diplomatic correspondence between Mr Rainier Imperti and the Monegasque consul in Stockholm, sent by the latter to third party (2 [two] pages);
– Mixed envoys from the Swedish government and the aforementioned consul, without my being able to tell the really initial, total number of pages, and without my being able to tell who the real sender was / is, with an original and colour copies, in order for You to be able to see my corrections of translations and my remarks in red ink, just as the use by “X” of the marker pen. The odd red numbering of pages done by myself at the base of each page is pursuant to the staples affair. Indeed, I have removed none of them (67 [sixty-seven] pages);


Hence a total of 86 [eighty-six] pages.


Sequel to page 12; last minute addition

Today, Sunday 1st of May 2005, my mother’s telephone rang. When she answered, the caller hung up; after a while. This kind of events is becoming more and more frequent. We managed to trace this person. The call comes from Mrs Marie BOOF, from her fix French telephone.

Considering what I have written to You about this person within my previous criminal complaints.

On the 24th of January, my mother gave You “into hands” a letter with Marie BOOF’s contact details. You should obviously already have questioned her. This person has, as You know, taken my mother’s jewellery, transporting it out of the flat, with the assistance of Corinne MÉTIVIER whilst trying to break into the 22nd floor. Marie BOOF is a private person, who can / should not be working for Escaut-Marquet. The stolen jewellery may indeed be in Marie BOOF’s possession. It goes without saying that a search warrant is called for, to say the least, and in urgency, apart from those pursuant to the aforementioned Monegasque search warrants. For the stolen goods not to have been found to this day, under these circumstances, and under bailiff Escaut-Marquet’s control constitutes a scandal of its own. And an extremely alarming one.

[ signed]

David Fristedt

Attached documents, apart from those already mentioned in the previous page:

– Testimonial (grotesque and harmful) signed Marie BOOF on 26 August 2004 (6 [six] pages);
– Monica Fristedt’s fax for Your attention on 3 January 2005 (2 [two] pages;
– Page titled “Missing goods of my studio nr 19, Bloc A, 12th floor, Périgord 1, since 27 July 2004 with reservation”, with additions (1 [one] page);
– A letter of which the original was signed Monica Fristedt for Your attention “into hands” of 24 January 2005 (1 [one] page).

Hence 97 [ninety-seven] pages.

[End of excerpts of the letter of 29 April 2005]

A former Monegasque lawyer of victim Mrs Monica Fristedt, Mrs Evelyne KARCZAG-MENCARELLI, told her that the so called “client” to the infamous couple Escaut-Marquet / Escaut was entitled to demand to have the State taking pictures of all the victims’ belongings (art, documents etc. even if the bailiff knows that it all belongs to the victims – as confirmed in writing by the very bailiff herself. In this case the belongings are mostly Mrs Fristedt’s). With such a “legal” standpoint, any swindler has “carte blanche” to go ahead and get pictures of residents’ belongings in Monaco. To this day, the pictures that were taken on the order of Marie-Thérèse Escaut-Marquet have not yet (2011) been handed back.

Lawyer Evelyne KARCZAG-MENCARELLI who for some reason sat in the audience before the Supreme Court.

Lawyer Evelyne KARCZAG-MENCARELLI who for some reason sat in the audience before the Supreme Court.

The two girlfriends (the convicted swindler) and incriminated Marie BOOF (who has confessed) lived in France.

The swindler was allowed by Brigitte Gambarini to use the bailiff’s husband’s head stationary the 21st July 2004 and even to sign it.

The swindler travelled twice to Cannes with her lawyer, the bailiff’s husband, to get a translator’s stamps on the documents, in preparation for the intentional scam towards – among others – the Swedish Government.

Mrs BOOF was bailiff Escaut-Marquet’s henchman during the criminal inventory of Mrs MF’s most private belongings, and alongside deputy clerk Corinne MÉTIVIER, she was allowed, and apparently still so, by the State, to take MF’s jewellery and other belongings out of her apartment.

Mrs BOOF was also lawyer Didier Escaut’s main witness in the urgent civil trial (Tribunal des référés) that Mrs MF had to go through since she refused to pay the 300.000,00 € that lawyer Didier Escaut claimed in order for her to get the apartment and the stolen goods back, but it was too late. Some valuable goods are still missing.

Here is a fax of historical importance for Monaco due to the date, pending action from Chief Prosecutor DRENO (attached document nr 8), translated from the original (excerpts):



Att: Maître Didier Escaut
Fax: +377 93159028
Exp. M. David Fristedt
Fax: +46 8 […}
Date: 5 octobre 2004
Pages in all: 1 (one)

Par fax uniquement / per fax only


Your Client, [the convicted swindler], has been assigned in urgency [Tribunal des référés, an instance of the court aimed for swift action] since Mrs Monica Fristedt has refused your offer, namely that of paying300.000,00 Euros (Three hundred thousand Euros) in order to get her belongings back..

Following a certain reconciliation hearing of last 29 of September, it has – among other news – come to my knowledge certain economic claims against me, and not least, an undefined amount of money [1], consisting in Your client being able to find a new living of the same kind that the one she has occupied with You, in violation of the current law texts in the Principality.

I would hence appreciate Your kindly enlightening me regarding the following questions:

– The amount of 300.000,00 Euros, did it include my goods, yes or no? And those of […]?

– If yes, do you intend to deduct it from the amount that Your client intends to claim from me, an amount that You still haven’t defined?

– Can You justify to the adequate causality between Your first demand, formulated against Mrs Monica Fristedt, and the non existence of her name in any a judge’s order?

I address myself directly to You, since as far as Monaco be concerned, I no longer have any lawyer.

Your eventual reply is expected before 3 pm, Wednesday 6 Octobre 2004, Monaco time.

I would moreover appreciate Your kindly telling Your client to cease making phone calls to my family. You act with sufficient charisma, I reckon, for Your client to delegate such acting to You.

[…], 5 octobre 2004


David Fristedt

Cc : Monsieur le Procureur Général [Mister Chief Prosecutor], Daniel Serdet

[1] It later turned out to be a yet another illegal claim, this time of 100.000,00 € [one hundred thousand Euros].

Example of DF’s red penned remarks, where every mark is a wrong spelling and where every page (out of 30) of the translation looks in this way. Note the words “bug informatik”.


To be continued…