Sentenced in February to five years of ineligibility, twelve months suspended prison sentence and a fine of 15,000 euros, the former LR mayor of Montauban (Tarn-et-Garonne) is on appeal in Toulouse, Thursday, October 28, 2021 , for a case of embezzlement of public funds.
It was at 9 a.m., Thursday, October 28, 2021, that the appeal trial of the former mayor (LR) of Montauban for embezzlement of public funds began at the Toulouse Court of Appeal.
Brigitte Barèges was sentenced by the Toulouse Criminal Court on February 9 to twelve months suspended prison sentence, a fine of 15,000 euros and five years of ineligibility with immediate effect. She had, de facto, lost her two mandates at the town hall (which she had jealously guarded since 2001) and at the Agglomeration Community of Grand Montauban.
During the hearing, this Thursday, October 28, the Attorney General requested a six-year ineligibility sentence, i.e. one more year, “which will prevent him from participating in the next municipal elections“, 12 months suspended sentence and 30,000 euros fine, indicates France blue. The judgment of the Court of Appeal will be delivered on December 14 at 2 p.m.
But Brigitte Barèges does not give up: “I dispute my guilt and all the facts with which I am accused”, she said at the start of the hearing.
Fictitious employment and embezzlement of public funds
Facts complained of: having used the municipality’s money for personal purposes, thanks to a fictitious employment system set up between 2012 and 2013. And more precisely: having paid a municipal agent to write articles in his favor in daily columns The small newspaper.
Brigitte Barèges had already denounced the accusations “slanderous […] instrumentalised by [s]political opponents “, and, in his first trial, had continuously denied all charges. This court decision had prompted nearly 850 people to demonstrate in the streets of Montauban to support the former city councilor – who had herself initiated the march.
Justice had decided: Brigitte Barèges was “necessarily aware of this offense“, and that this constituted an attack on probity, even if it had not resulted in personal enrichment.
–
