GOODBYE MISTER RAYBAUD!
So, the third chief prosecutor in this affair leaves in turn, without having taken notice of the following dispositions of the Monegasque Criminal Code (see end of page), but having on the contrary contributed to the criminality in the Principality. It shall be asked for the new chief prosecutor to once and for all deal with the staples, marker pen and IT-bug affair, above all since those concerned – including Mr Jacques Raybaud himself – are magistrates and members of the executive and, particularly, the Director of judicial services Mr. Philippe Narmino, supposed to be the new chief prosecutor’s boss, but suspect number 1. However, the latter is in no way above the law. In practice, one could indeed believe that, but there is nothing to it, and the Criminal Code is rather clear on that.
One learns that Mr Jacques Raybaud is to become a judge in the Cour de Cassation (France’s judicial Supreme Court) in France. To tarnish Monaco’s image is one thing, but as far as France’s one is concerned, the Cour de Cassation must imperatively be informed about the actions and non-actions of Mr Raybaud. Such announcement is of public interest and constitutes a civic duty. Particularly since the Monegasque authorities have taken the help of French citizens to commit their crimes. Let’s not forget that the chief prosecutor is letting public ministerial officials use his head stationary for the commission of forging of documents on an international scale, and that the effects of the blackmail continue with his graciousness. All in order to enable some to save their bacon. Out of two options: either Mr Raybaud accepts his responsibilities, or with his help he will contribute to demonstrate those pertaining to Mr Narmino. That would then, as if needed, prove that the ECHR is right when it states that the prosecution’s department is not independent.
The following articles will be completed with the names of the persons they refer to, and such document will lead to a demand for a preliminary investigation and hearing, signed Mr David FRISTEDT and sent to the new chief prosecutor. Besides his capacity as a suspect, Mr Raybaud will be summoned to testify against Mr Narmino, the President of the Court of first instance Mrs Brigitte GAMBARINI, the bailiff Maître Marie-Thérèse ESCAUT-MARQUET, her husband defense lawyer Maître Didier ESCAUT, the Police chief Mr André MUHLBERGER, and many others. Failure to do so would indeed increase his responsibilities. In order to make sure that Mr Narmino not be interfering during this next step, a copy of it shall be reserved for the attention of the Cour de Cassation.
Goodbye, Mister Raybaud!
(For the relevant articles of the Criminal code, see end of page)
Excerpts of the Raybaud case
Jacques Raybaud’s departure is recent news, and his new appointment derives from a decree signed by the President of the French Republic Mr Nicolas SARKOZY, according to the Journal Officiel of 13 February 2011, if one is to believe the Monegasque press, still not free (as the Council of Europe recently noted). Jacques Raybaud is to have been proposed for the job by the Superior Council of Magistracy [Conseil Supérieur de la Magistrature]during its last 21 January session. In this regard, Mr Raybaud’s recent past, and the imminent criminal investigation around him would be of interest – apart to that of the Cour de Cassation – to the said Council, as well as to the students of the National School of Magistracy [École Nationale de la Magistrature](France). Indeed, this is becoming a real thriller!
That being said, and in view of current events in late February 2011, herewith some other important thoughts about Mr Raybaud that leaves to desire, hereby published in a haste, somewhat in bulk.
The Chief Prosecutor of the Principality, Mr Jaques Raybaud, is the third Chief Prosecutor since 2004, the period when this scandal broke out.
The position of Chief Prosecutor seems to be becoming a temporary post.
Since Mr Raybaud has assumed his responsibilities as a prosecutor in Monaco, he has not bothered to respond to a single complaint lodged by the Fristedt family or its legal representatives, sent to the police authorities and the prosecutor since 2004 . This is why Mrs Fristedt has been forced to take the matter up with the Supreme Court, to expose the denial of justice which has taken place since 2004 and which has assumed even more alarming proportions under Prosecutor Raybaud’s authority.
The most serious misdemeanours made by Mr Raybaud are as follows:
• Raybaud’s refusal to carry out an investigation pertaining to the forged documents – relating to both the Court of First Instance’s and the Prosecutor’s department. This is a case of offences which may, notably, be qualified as forgery of public writing committed by ministerial public officers.
The law herefore provides harsh enprisonment sentences (see end of page), particularly if the said prosecutor chooses to act as a co-perpertrator or perpertrator.
• Raybaud’s refusal to carry out an investigation into the forgery relating to the Court of first instance’s illegal official order dated 21 July 2004 which was the very cause of this unlikely scandal, as well as the infringements and thefts that occurred as a result of it.
• Finally, Raybaud’s unbelievable nerve in accepting to assume the role of Prosecutor at the Supreme Court, when the very reason for these legal proceedings is mainly his refusal to correctly perform his duties as Chief Prosecutor! It would be difficult to find a more formidable example of a biased party. Many people, not least victims, think that a prosecutor such as Raybaud is an embarrassment to the entire profession.
On 27 May 2010, David F wrote the following in a letter addressed to Prosecutor Raybaud:
“I again note, with horror, that you omitted to hand over a substantial amount of information to the Supreme Court, and for good reason: you were supposed to lay criminal charges against yourself, something difficult to do calmly and legally (especially in the presence of the incriminated party Didier Escaut, whose unhealthy curiosity, full of trust, resulted in a watercolour drawing). In this respect, the said Supreme Court refers to allegedly non filed complaints against police officers. Well, I have indeed filed complaints against them, from the beginning, lodged with the Chief Prosecutor. You have the file.”
On Mr Narmino, he writes:
“Even more, Narmino, following the final Swedish judgement, flew off the handle and declared through a false statement in writing to my mother that I was not divorced. That proves how hard it was for him to accept the reality of the situation, in light of his position – for nothing – since the beginning. I am therefore making an official complaint against the already implicated Mr Philippe Narmino for making a false statement.”
On Mr Raybaud’s lack of action, he writes:
“In fact, because of your lack of action, the condemned party was able to pursue a criminal career in Monaco located in the Monte Carlo Travel Market, finding many victims on the way. Again, because you failed to act, the swindler Shahzada – who would have been sentenced for a long jail time – was put on probation, as there was no criminal background. She can thank you for that, Mr Raybaud.”
He continues with the following elements:
Please do what Your personal, moral and professional conscience tells you, and what the Prince asks You to do, in whose name Justice owes itself to be done, and accept that this is a fait accompli (checkmate).
Also, please return the stolen jewels (see the officially certified confessions in spite of which you have not done anything), or even their equivalent in money, plus that for the other items, as well as any photos. I have promised my family this result. On the shameful web page www.bimcam.com, you will see that the emeralds were produced by none other than the Royal Jeweller, which will be brought to the forefront amidst the forthcoming wedding of Sweden’s future Queen and Chief of State to Her beloved one. You know who confessed to having taken them and you are not doing anything. I find that astounding. Especially since the admissions bear official stamps. It goes without saying that You now hold a place in the history of Monaco, in the greatest scandal the country has known since 1297.”
And the letter ends as follows:
“Today and for almost six years, whoever resides in Monaco, or whoever wishes to do so or invest there or whoever already has investments there, runs the real risk, confirmed in writing, of being ruined. I plan to put an end to this, even if it displeases you.”
Due to the fact that Monaco has allowed this scandal to take on international proportions, taking the forged documents and slander towards third party with blackmail on an international level by sending them to the Swedish government, and also due to the attitude of the Swedish Consul in Monaco, also Councillor to the Monegasque Crown Mrs Patricia HUSSON, a copy of the letter has been sent to:
His Majesty the King of Sweden, Carl XVI Gustaf;
His Serene Highness Prince Albert II of Monaco;
His Excellency, the Minister of State of the Principality of Monaco, Michel Roger;
Statsminister Fredrik Reinfeldt, Minister of State of the Kingdom of Sweden;
Some excerpts from Mrs Fristedt’s request to the ECHR:
The lack of impartiality by the Prosecutor General, Mr. Jacques Raybaud
203. To this subjective partiality by the Director of Judicial Services, Mr. Philippe Narmino, and the possible conflict of interests of Maître Joëlle Pastor-Bensa, we would add that Mrs. Fristedt also disputes the subjective impartiality of the Prosecutor General, Mr. Jacques Raybaud in the proceedings before the Supreme Court.
204. It is a fact that the various complaints and requests for access to Mrs. Fristedt’s case file addressed to the Prosecutor General, Mr. Jacques Raybaud remain, to this day, unanswered and are thus contributing to the continued breach of Mrs. Fristedt’s fundamental rights. These decisions, which constitute implicit refusals to provide access to the case file, were precisely the subject of a petition by Mrs. Fristedt before the Supreme Court to have them set aside, formulated secondarily to the principal petition appealing for compensation and requesting investigative measures.
205. Consequently, the Prosecutor General, Mr. Jacques Raybaud, was manifestly incapable of summing up, objectively and impartially, concerning this petition to have his own refusals of access to the case file set aside, which were in this case likely to reveal the magnitude of the persistent failure to take action by the Prosecutor General’s office and by the Prosecutor General himself, in the face of the continued and/or continuous breaches of Mrs. Fristedt’s fundamental rights.
206. The facts are that under the terms of article 31 of the Order of 16 April 1963 governing the organization and workings of the Supreme Court, “The Prosecutor General sums up in the name of the law; after his conclusions, counsel is no longer entitled to make submissions.”
207. To this subjective lack of impartiality by the Prosecutor General during the proceedings before the Supreme Court we would therefore add an objective assessment, which consists of asking whether, regardless of the personal conduct of the Prosecutor General, certain verifiable facts allow us to suspect the latter’s impartiality. In this case, it is constant case law that even appearances can be important. There will be confidence that the courts of a democratic society should inspire the litigants (judgment in the De Cubber case of 26 October 1984, series A no. 86, pp. 13-14, § 24 and Didier v. France (dec.), no. 58188/00, 27 August 2002).
208. However, it is clear from constant case law of the Court that the concept of a fair hearing in principle involves the right for the parties to a process of taking note of every document or observation submitted to the judge, albeit by an independent magistrate, in order to influence his decision and to discuss it (see these judgments: Lobo Machado v. Portugal dated 20 February 1996, Summary of judgments and rulings 1996-I, p. 215, § 49, Vermeulen v. Belgium dated 20 February 1996, Summary 1996-I, p. 234, § 33, K.D.B. v. the Netherlands dated 27 March 1998, Summary 1998-II, p. 631, § 44, and Nideröst-Huber v. Switzerland, judgment dated 18 February 1997, Summary 1997 I, p. 108, § 24).
209. Regarding the lack of possibility for the parties, in proceedings before the Council of Government in France, to respond to the summing up by the Government Commissioner at the end of the judgment hearing, Mrs. Fristedt refers to the judgment of 31 March 1998 in the case of Reinhardt and Slimane-Kaïd v. France, Summary 1998-II.
210. In this case, Mrs. Fristedt did not have, in the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the opportunity to ask the Prosecutor General, prior to the hearing, for the general direction of his conclusions. Similarly, she was no longer able to reply, at the hearing or by a note to the Court while it was in session, to the observations by the Prosecutor General summing up in the name of the law, which would have enabled absolute respect of the principle regarding the principle of an adversarial hearing (refer specifically to the judgment of 28 November 2006 in the case of Poulain de Saint Père v. France, no. 38718/02 § 17 and Kress v. France, [GC], no. 39594/98, § 79, ECHR 2001 VI). Moreover, the concepts of independence and objective impartiality are closely related (Kleyn et al. v. the Netherlands ([GC], nos. 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98 and 46664/99, § 192, ECHR 2003-VI).
211. Respect of the principle of an adversarial hearing should have been imposed in this case with more force to the proceedings before the Supreme Court, as it is precisely the persistent failure to take action by the Director of Judicial Services and by the Prosecutor General to pursue those responsible for the breaches of the appellant’s fundamental rights which are at the heart of the continuous and/or continued breach of Mrs. Fristedt’s fundamental rights.
212. It is clear that Mrs. Fristedt should be seen as having been injured in her rights to a fair hearing, as protected by article 6 of the Convention.
Excerpt of the Supreme Court’s decision of 16 Febrary 2009
Excerpt of the Supreme Court’s decision of 16 Febrary 2009, leading to believe in the lack of laied charges in due time against the police officers, even by a third party, and without taking into consideration the responsibilities of the chief prosecutor rightly seized in urgency since the knowledge or suspicion of any infringement of the Criminal code.
(Here is the translation in English):
I. In constitutional matters:
On the application for compensation;
Considering, according to Article 90-A-20 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court rules sovereignly in constitutional matters on the action for damages for an infringement upon the rights and freedoms enshrined in Chapter III of the Constitution, and which are not referred to in paragraph B of this Article;
Considering it follows from this text that except when a law is concerned, the infringement upon the rights and freedoms enshrined in Chapter III of the Constitution must be the result of blatantly unlawful conduct, i.e. material act of an administrative authority, taken out of any procedure or any law, excluding acts of the judicial authority or acts of an individual;
Considering that with exception of the facts the police officers are accused of Mrs Fristedt’s applications fall outside the constitutional framework;
Considering the allegations made towards the police officers that Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Sovereign Order of 16 April 1963 states that “the appeal must, subject to inadmissibility, be brought within two months of the date of the act on which it is based has been known to the party concerned,” that Mrs Fristedt accuses police officers, that she had called, for not having opposed, on 27 July 2004, the entrance of her daughter-in-law, Mrs Shazada, into the 12th floor studio of the Périgord building in Monaco; that the action for damages was recorded by Mrs Fristedt at the Registry of the Supreme Court on 17 December 2007; that it is under these conditions late and inadmissible;
Excerpts from Mrs Fristedt’s request to the ECHR (continuation):
160. The appellant asserts that the timescale for extension of proceedings made before the Supreme Court by two months, regarding the actions of police agents called to the scene was in itself a breach of articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention.
161. Article 13, paragraph 2 of the Sovereign Order of 16 April 1963 makes provision that “the appeal must, on pain of inadmissibility, be filed within two months, starting from the day on which the act on which it is based was known by the person concerned.”
162. If it is necessary to recognize compatibility with the Convention by setting reasonable deadlines for appeals against breaches of fundamental rights, on pain of exclusion, these times must not be such as to make the exercising of the rights conferred by the Convention impossible for all practical purposes or excessively difficult.
163. In this respect, a national time for exclusion of two months, which runs from the date of the act which led to a breach of the Convention, appears manifestly unreasonable.
164. In this case, the reasoning of the Supreme Court implies that Mrs. Fristedt should have filed an appeal before the Supreme Court for breach of her home, her private life, her correspondence and the peaceful enjoyment of her property as early as 27 September 2004, i.e. even before her rights were partially reinstated, following the appeal which she filed personally before the Court of First Instance against Mrs. Shahzada. In other words, the actions of police agents should have been condemned before the Supreme Court , even prior to being able to repossess her home and record the thefts which had occurred in her absence
One cannot but notice that the Supreme Court’s reasoning is without head or tail. It is not up to the Fristedt family to ensure that the charges lodged with the police are followed up on, even if that’s what late Minister of State Jean-Paul Proust appears to insinuate. It is also not the family’s responsibility to tell the prosecutor or police which counts of indictment should be retained.
It was indeed Chief Prosecutor Jacques Raybaud’s responsibility to determine if the police committed any misdemeanours.
Mr David Fristedt – who is a stranger to the proceedings before the Supreme Court – has never been heard regarding his laid charges.
This deserves to be repeated: he has never been heard!
The actions will continue as long as no investigation has been launched.
Herewith some examples of claims which demonstrate the most serious level of fault on the part of the police on 27 July 2004: it is completely outrageous to claim that the Fristedt family laid charges against the police too late. It would have been difficult to have laid these charges any sooner. To claim that private persons should turn to the Supreme Court within a period of two months following the incident is completely ridiculous! Nevertheless, the Fristedt family did even better: in May 2004, they warned the police before any a crime were to be committed!
Examples of laid charges
Examples of laid charges that a hardly independent prosecutor’s department sees as being “not characterized”:
(Here is the translation in English)
Att : Monsieur le Procureur Général
Fax : + 377 93500568
Sender : Mr David Fristedt
Date: 2 August 2004
Total number of pages: 1 (one)
Re: Clarification regarding the charge against Maître Escaut-Marquet:
The charge in question, for “assault and battery at the least” was made in great haste to protect my mother, Monica Fristedt. It strictly has nothing to do with any ruling regarding a divorce request made by my wife.
I blame Maître Escaut-Marquet for having evicted Mrs Monica Fristedt from the apartment she is renting without a judge’s order.
After my mother had called the police, the latter arrived at the premises, and were made to believe, presumably, that the judge’s order that Maître Escaut-Marquet was brandishing related to my mother. That was not the case. The police, to my knowledge, were mistaken. They should have assisted my mother by stopping Maître Escaut-Marquet’s activities.
The irreversible damages sustained by my mother are substantial. She went back to Sweden in slippers, with no access to her savings. I’m referring to an unheard of scandal.
I remain at your disposal for any additional information required.
(Here is the translation in English)
To: The Department of Public Safety
From: Monica Fristedt
Date: 7 August 2004
Total number of pages: 1
I hereby request that the apartment I am renting, at No.19, Château Périgord 1, Block A, 12th floor, be secured, urgently and using all means, insofar as the occupant of the abovementioned apartment does not have a lease or a lodging permit.
By default, I ask you to consider this a charge against X for having confiscated my belongings, without an official order to this effect and for having made them available to other parties.
Done at […], 7 August 2004
Mr David Fristedt’s laid charges of 14 October 2004:
“ […] and fifthly
against any police official who has made this scandal possible, and/or who did not wish to remedy it, and/or for any active or passive participation constituting an infringement of the Penal Code.”
Herewith, the laid charges:
(Here is the translation in English)
Att: Mr Chief Prosecutor
Fax: + 377 93500568
Sender: Mr David Fristedt
Date: 14 October 2004
Total number of pages: 23 (twenty-three)
Re: My previous correspondence, attached hereto.
Mr Chief Prosecutor,
My letter LR/AR [Registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt] of 23 August 2004, sent on the 10th of September and received by yourself on the 17th of the same month, preceded by a fax containing the same content refers.
The lack of activity on the part of the Monegasque authorities continues. I had a long telephonic conversation at the beginning of August with the Management of Public Safety – the Director being absent at that time – seeing that several policemen have been involved in this scandal.
In the light of the latest membership of the Principality of Monaco in the Council of Europe,
In the light of the Monegasque constitution,
I regret to state, Mr Chief Prosecutor, that my own fundamental rights, as well as those of my mother and my sister have not only been ridiculed, but also disregarded.
Offences have continued to be committed throughout the continued silence of the Prosecutor’s department. It seems as if I am the victim of a sort of denial of justice.
I therefore owe it to myself to write to you again regarding new offences, regarding which I am laying these charges.
I, the undersigned, am laying charges against
Maître Didier Escaut,
on the one hand,
for attempt to blackmail and/or for blackmail in terms of Article 323 of the Penal Code, first paragraph, for having recently attempted to obtain from Mrs Monica Fristedt, the amount of 300,000.00 Euros in exchange for her taking possession of her dues, following an issue about which you were already aware.
This therefore constitutes a disengagement from responsibility, on a criminal level, between lawyer and client.
For reasons arising, among other things, from Maître Escaut’s allegations before an illegal hearing (and consequently an invalid one) on 29 September, and in the light of another hearing that would take place on 20 October, I have reason to believe that this presented a golden opportunity to go from the attempt of blackmail to carry out the very definition of blackmail.
In fact, Maître Escaut requested this amount from a person whose name does not appear in any official order. This is why the latter, my mother, summoned [Mrs Shahzada], on the advice of her counsel at that time, to interlocutory proceedings. It was a civil case. The resulting decision proves that [Mrs Shahzada, who would subsequently be charged for breach of trust and fraud in another affair, despite warnings] had never had the right to enter the apartment in question in the first place. The rest of the decision was characterised by definite and frank incoherence. I note, however, with great rigour, that the judge in the abovementioned affair only referred to a civil matter, according to the wishes of my mother’s counsel.
having perpetuated and been the signatory for the fabrication of all documents constituting the basis of this scandal, particularly in a public place, before a court, in court proceedings unfamiliar to myself, and in a libellous, slanderous manner that goes against the truth. […] Commentary on his allegations will be sent to you as soon as possible.
against Mrs Charlotte Shahzada, […] for having deceived the Monegasque authorities in order to gain access to the apartment of a third party; and this to my own serious harm, notwithstanding that of others or that of an independent state, which is a member of the United Nations and the Council of Europe
and for having resorted to blackmail in an affair concerning myself, against persons not included in any official order, moreover through her counsel.
Finally, I am laying a charge against Charlotte Shahzada or X for the theft in particular of a pair of emeralds, inherited from my maternal grandmother, to the detriment of her daughter, Mrs Monica Fristedt.
Also for deliberate damage of goods by illegally entering someone else’s apartment, in Corinne Métivier’s view, in this particular case, a portrait of my late father.
against Corinne Métivier, once again, for having evicted three persons, namely my mother, my sister as well as an arts expert for insurance purposes from the premises on that day ad hoc, and without an official order to this effect.
In this case, there is repetition.
against Maître Thérese Escaut-Marquet, for the same reasons as those cited above, the only difference being, in my estimation, her increased responsibility as head of services.
In this case, there is repetition..
against any police official who has made this scandal possible, and/or who did not wish to remedy it, and/or for any active or passive participation constituting an infringement of the Penal Code.
I would like to state that I am unable to separate out the specific responsibilities involved in this issue. In fact, I think that this is indeed what falls within the scope of the judicial authorities.
Finally, I would like to highlight the fact that in her civil petition, Charlotte Shahzada formally gave an account of the correspondence between her and myself during summer. In this invaluable document, she provides her new address in London, and adds that her door is always open to me.
Besides her financial situation and the non-existence of a home or residence in Monaco, I consider there to be a real risk of her fleeing.
In addition, it is relevant to state that a divorce will be declared in Sweden, automatically, following the confirmation of the competent court in Stockholm.
For all intents and purposes, I will send you my letter addressed to the President of the Court of Monaco, as soon as possible.
[…], 14 October 2004
– Copy of the fax of 5 October 2004 addressed to Maître Didier Escaut, not followed by any response (1 [one] page)
– Copy of the fax, with today’s date, addressed to Mr President of the Court, without attached documents
(3 [three] pages)
– Medical certificate of 15 March 2004 (1 [one] page)
– Correspondence between my wife (see dates) and myself and a fax from her sister (13 [thirteen] pages)
– Medical certificate of 11 October 2004 (1 [one] page)
NB: This will only be sent via fax.
Excerpt from the claim of 18 October 2004
Translation of the original French documents:
[…] I, the undersigned, would like to lay a charge against Charlotte Shahzada, for having entered – cunningly and by breaking and entering – on 27 July 2004, my Monegasque residence, studio no. 19, Château Périgord 1, Block A, which I am renting in Monaco, and for having changed the locks and having taken possession of my personal belongings in a fraudulent manner, namely, and as an example, all my sensitive, confidential and private documents, as well as works of art of great value as well as a unique doll collection; and, considering that the weather here in Sweden has been –6°C recently, my winter clothing, which I obviously need.
I confirm that Charlotte deliberately lied to the judge in order to take possession of my apartment and my personal effects, in order to be able to blackmail me, and to be able to lay claim to a supposed residence in Monaco during her divorce proceedings to show competence in this regard before Monegasque courts.
It seems to me that Charlotte Shahzada planned her illegal actions in detail; I invite you to analyse the ways in which this was done in the attached document, which provides a summary of certain facts that have bearing on this issue
[…], 18 October 2004,
Translation of the original French documents:
Att: Mr Chief Prosecutor
Fax: +377 93500568
Sender: Mrs Monica Fristedt
Date: 3 January 2005
Total number of pages: 1
Mr Chief Prosecutor,
I ask you to kindly send me the results of the charges I have laid.
1. Regarding the charge of 7 August 2004 against X for having taken possession of my belongings, without an official order to this effect, and for having made them available to others.
2. The charge of 18 October 2004 against Charlotte Shahzada for burglary. I cannot think of another word to describe it.
3. The charge of 3 December against Charlotte Shahzada for the theft of my jewellery, among other items.
I personally went to see Lieutenant Médard on 3/12/2004 to provide details of the items stolen from my studio at no. 19, Chateau Périgord 1, however I did not receive any papers and I don’t recall if I signed a document or not.
Please provide me with a copy of this document.
And of course I would like to know if the Police has found my jewellery.
The persons involved and/or those who can provide information about the three charges I laid are:
• […] Nice
• Charlotte Shahzada’s friend, Mrs Marie Boof ,[…] Cagnes/Mer
• Maître M.T. Escaut Marquet and/or the bailiff Mrs Corinne Métivier, 29 Bld des Moulins, Monte-Carlo
• Maître D. Escaut, 29 Bld des Moulins, Monte-Carlo
• The Officers of Public Safety present at the premises on 27 July 2004 at Chateau Périgord 1, Block A, 12th floor (regarding my first official complaint)
I remain at your disposal for any additional information required.
Excerpts of the Monegasque Criminal Code in view of the current event
Extraits d’actualité du Code pénal monégasque
Article 26 .- ( Loi n° 1.004 du 4 juillet 1978 ; Loi n° 1.229 du 6 juillet 2000 ; Loi n° 1.247 du 21 décembre 2001 )
Le montant de la peine d’amende est fixé pour chaque délit suivant les catégories ci-après :
– chiffre 1 : de 750 à 2 250 euros;
– chiffre 2 : de 2 250 à 9 000 euros;
– chiffre 3 : de 9 000 à 18 000 euros;
– chiffre 4 : de 18 000 à 90 000 euros;
Article 84 .- Ceux qui auront contrefait le sceau de l’État ou fait usage du sceau contrefait seront punis de la réclusion de dix à vingt ans.
Article 85 .- Ceux qui auront contrefait ou falsifié, soit un ou plusieurs timbres nationaux, soit le poinçon ou les poinçons servant à marquer les matières d’or ou d’argent, ou qui auront fait usage de papiers, effets, timbres, marques ou poinçons falsifiés ou contrefaits, seront punis de la réclusion de cinq à dix ans.
Article 88 .- Sera puni de la dégradation civique, quiconque, s’étant indûment procuré les vrais sceaux, timbres ou marques ayant l’une des destinations exprimées en l’article précédent, en aura fait une application ou un usage préjudiciable aux droits ou intérêts de l’État, d’une autorité quelconque ou même d’un établissement particulier.
Article 90 .- Le faux en écriture est l’altération de la vérité, commise avec conscience de nuire, dans un écrit destiné ou apte à servir à la preuve d’un droit ou d’un fait ayant un effet de droit.
Article 91 .- Sera puni de la réclusion de cinq à dix ans, celui qui aura falsifié un acte public ou authentique :
– soit par fabrication, soit par altération des signatures, déclaration ou relation du fait que l’acte avait pour objet de constater ;
– soit par fabrication d’une copie ou d’une traduction, certifiée conforme, d’un acte public ou authentique inexistant.
Quand l’auteur de la falsification est un fonctionnaire ou un officier public, agissant dans l’exercice de ses fonctions, la peine sera celle de la réclusion de dix à vingt ans.
Article 92 .- Sera puni de la réclusion de dix à vingt ans tout fonctionnaire ou officier public qui, dans l’exercice de ses fonctions aura commis un faux :
– soit en dénaturant, au moment de sa rédaction, la substance de l’écrit ou les circonstances qu’il a pour objet de constater ;
– soit en traçant une ou plusieurs signatures supposées ;
– soit en délivrant une copie inexacte d’un acte public ou authentique ou d’un acte privé ;
– soit en certifiant conforme la traduction qu’il sait fausse de l’un quelconque de ces actes.
Article 96 .- Les dispositions du présent paragraphe sont applicables aux actes étrangers, indépendamment de leur force probante dans la Principauté.
Article 108 .- Tout juge, administrateur, fonctionnaire ou officier public qui aura détruit, supprimé, soustrait ou détourné les actes et titres dont il était dépositaire en cette qualité, ou qui lui auraient été remis ou communiqués en raison de ses fonctions, sera puni de la peine de la réclusion de dix à vingt ans.
Tout greffier, huissier, agent, préposé ou commis, soit du Gouvernement, soit des dépositaires publics, qui se sera rendu coupable des mêmes soustractions, sera puni de la même peine.
Article 123 .- Tout fonctionnaire de l’ordre administratif ou judiciaire, tout officier de justice ou de police, tout commandant ou agent de la force publique, qui, agissant en sa dite qualité, se sera introduit dans le domicile d’un habitant, contre le gré de celui-ci, hors les cas prévus par la loi et sans les formalités qu’elle a prescrites, sera puni d’un emprisonnement de trois mois à un an et de l’amende prévue au chiffre 2 de l’article 26 ou de l’une de ces deux peines seulement, sans préjudice de l’application, le cas échéant, des dispositions du second alinéa de l’article 72.
Article 125 .- Tout juge, tout administrateur ou tout autre officier public qui, sous quelque prétexte que ce soit, même du silence, de l’obscurité ou de l’insuffisance de la loi, aura refusé de rendre la justice qu’il doit aux parties, après en avoir été requis, et qui aura persévéré dans son déni, pourra être poursuivi et puni de l’amende prévue au chiffre 3 de l’article 26 ; il pourra aussi être déclare incapable d’exercer une fonction publique depuis deux ans jusqu’à dix.
Article 129 .- Les peines énoncées aux articles 127 et 128 ne seront pas applicables aux fonctionnaires ou préposés qui auraient agi par ordre de leurs supérieurs, lorsque cet ordre aura été donné par ceux-ci, pour des objets de leur ressort et sur lesquels il leur était dû obéissance hiérarchique ; dans ce cas, les peines ne seront appliquées qu’aux supérieurs qui, les premiers, auront donné cet ordre.
Article 137 .- Hors les cas où la loi règle spécialement les peines encourues pour crimes ou délits commis par les fonctionnaires ou officiers publics, ceux d’entre eux qui auront participé à d’autres crimes ou délits qu’ils étaient chargés de prévenir, constater ou réprimer, seront condamnés comme il suit :
– s’il s’agit d’un délit : au maximum de la peine attachée au délit de l’espèce ;
– s’il s’agit d’un crime :
• à la réclusion de cinq ans à dix ans, lorsque le crime emporte contre tout autre coupable la peine du bannissement ou de la dégradation civique ;
• à la réclusion de dix à vingt ans, lorsque le crime emporte contre tout autre coupable la peine de la réclusion de cinq à dix ans ;
• à la réclusion à perpétuité lorsque le crime emporte contre tout autre coupable la peine de la réclusion de dix à vingt ans ou à perpétuité.
Article 209 .- Toute association, toute entente établies en vue de préparer ou de commettre des crimes contre les personnes ou les propriétés, constituent un crime contre la paix publique.
Article 211 .- Sera puni de la réclusion de cinq à dix ans, quiconque aura sciemment favorisé les auteurs du crime prévu à l’article 209, en leur fournissant des instruments, moyens de correspondance, logement ou lieu de réunion.
Article 279 .- (Modifié par la loi n° 1.344 du 26 décembre 2007 )
Sans préjudice de l’application, le cas échéant, des peines plus fortes prévues par le présent code ou par des lois spéciales, sera puni d’un emprisonnement de six mois à trois ans et de l’amende prévue au chiffre 3 de l’article 26.
• 1°) Celui qui, ayant connaissance d’un crime contre les personnes, déjà tenté ou consommé, n’aura pas aussitôt averti les autorités judiciaires ou administratives, alors qu’une dénonciation était encore susceptible d’en prévenir ou limiter les effets ou lorsqu’il existait des circonstances de nature à laisser prévoir que les coupables commettraient de nouveaux crimes que cette dénonciation eût pu empêcher.
Sont exceptés des dispositions qui précèdent, les parents ou alliés, jusqu’au quatrième degré inclusivement, des auteurs ou complices du crime ou de la tentative, sauf en ce qui concerne les crimes commis sur les mineurs au-dessous de l’âge de seize ans accomplis.
• 2° Celui qui, pouvant empêcher par son action immédiate, mais sans risque pour lui ni pour les tiers, soit un fait qualifié crime, soit un délit portant atteinte à l’intégrité corporelle d’une personne, s’en abstient volontairement ;
• 3° Celui qui s’abstient volontairement de porter à une personne en péril l’assistance que, sans risque pour lui ni pour les tiers, il pouvait lui prêter, soit pas son action personnelle, soit en provoquant un secours ;
• 4° Celui qui, ayant la preuve de l’innocence d’une personne qu’il sait être détenue préventivement ou devoir être jugée pour crime ou délit, s’abstient volontairement d’apporter aussitôt son témoignage aux autorités de justice ou de police. Toutefois, aucune peine ne sera prononcée contre celui qui, spontanément, apportera ce témoignage, même tardif.
Sont exceptés de la disposition qui précède le : coupable du fait qui motivait la poursuite, ses coauteurs, ses complices et les parents ou alliés de ces personnes jusqu’au quatrième degré inclusivement.
Article 307 .- Quiconque, par quelque moyen que ce soit, aura fait une dénonciation calomnieuse contre une ou plusieurs personnes, aux officiers de justice ou de police administrative ou judiciaire, ou à toute autorité ayant le pouvoir d’y donner suite ou de saisir l’autorité compétente, sera puni d’un emprisonnement de six mois à trois ans et de l’amende prévue au chiffre 3 de l’article 26.
Le tribunal pourra, en outre, ordonner la publication du jugement, conformément à l’article 30 du présent code.
La juridiction saisie en vertu du présent article devra surseoir à statuer, si des poursuites concernant le fait dénoncé sont pendantes.
Article 309 .- Quiconque a soustrait frauduleusement une chose qui ne lui appartient pas est coupable de vol.
Article 310 .- Les soustractions commises par le mari au préjudice de sa femme, par la femme au préjudice de son mari, par un veuf ou une veuve, quant aux choses qui avaient appartenu à l’époux décédé, par des enfants ou autres descendants au préjudice de leurs père et mère ou autres ascendants, par des père et mère ou autres ascendants au préjudice de leurs enfants ou autres descendants, ou par des alliés au même degré, ne pourront donner lieu qu’à des réparations civiles.
Cette immunité ne concerne pas les autres individus qui auront recelé ou appliqué à leur profit tout ou partie des objets volés.
Article 318 .- Est qualifié effraction, tout forcement, rupture, dégradation, démolition, enlèvement de murs, toits, planchers, portes, fenêtres, serrures, cadenas ou autres objets servant à fermer ou empêcher le passage, et de toute espèce de clôture quelle qu’elle soit.
Article 319 .- Les effractions sont extérieures ou intérieures.
Les effractions intérieures sont celles qui, après l’introduction dans les lieux mentionnés en l’alinéa précédent, sont faites aux portes ou clôtures du dedans, ainsi qu’aux armoires et autres meubles fermés.
Est compris dans la classe des effractions intérieures, le simple enlèvement de caisses, boîte, ballots, et autres meubles fermés qui contiennent des objets quelconques, bien que l’effraction n’ait pas été faite sur les lieux.
Article 323 .- Quiconque aura extorqué par force, violence ou contrainte, soit la remise de fonds ou valeurs, soit la signature ou la remise d’un écrit, d’un acte, d’un titre, d’une pièce quelconque contenant ou opérant obligation, disposition ou décharge, sera puni de la peine de la réclusion de dix à vingt ans.
Quiconque, à l’aide de menace écrite ou verbale, de révélations ou d’imputations diffamatoires, aura extorqué ou tenté d’extorquer, soit la remise de fonds ou valeurs, soit la signature ou la remise de l’un des écrits énumérés ci-dessus, sera puni d’un emprisonnement de un à cinq ans et de l’amende prévue au chiffre 4 de l’article 26.
Article 339 .- Ceux qui sciemment auront recelé des choses enlevées, détournées ou obtenues à l’aide d’un crime ou d’un délit seront punis des peines prévues à l’article 325.
Article 340 .- Dans le cas où une peine afflictive et infamante est applicable au fait qui a procuré les choses recelées, le receleur sera puni de la peine attachée par la loi au crime et aux circonstances du crime dont il aura eu connaissance au temps du recel.
Article 341 .- Le secret des correspondances est inviolable
To be continued…