Judged on appeal this Tuesday, March 9, the former mayor of Hesdin, Stéphane Sieczkowski-Samier, will be determined on his fate on April 13, the date on which the Douai court will deliver its judgment.
–
10 years of ineligibility, 36 months in prison including 30 months suspended sentence and 15,000 euros fine were requested by the Advocate General at the end of this appeal trial of the former mayor of Hesdin for embezzlement fund held this Tuesday, March 9. Requests more severe than at first instance where Stéphane Sieczkowski-Samier was sentenced to 5 years of ineligibility and 3 years in prison.
“The penalties requested are ridiculous“, reacts Me Bovis, the lawyer for the former mayor who again pleaded for total release.”Why not 20 years of ineligibility while we’re at it?“, he is offended.
On this subject, the editorial staff recommends
–
The former mayor of Hesdin had appealed against the judgment rendered by the court of Boulogne-sur-Mer in January 2020. He is accused of having paid with money from the community the costs of meals, fuel but also of ” having bought equipment found at his home.
On this subject, the editorial staff recommends
–
Among the points discussed during the hearing, the payment of some of his meal expenses. “The mayor is criticized for not having indicated the beneficiaries of his meals, but this is a matter of political secrecy. If the mayor wants to have lunch with the wife of a political opponent to retrieve information, he has the right not to say who he had lunch with. There is a total ignorance of the rules of public accounting“, considers his lawyer.
The appeal judgment rendered on April 13
A trip to attend the election of Miss France? “so what ?“, retorts again the lawyer of the accused.”I don’t give a damn about morals. She struggles on TV sets, in a cafe, but not in court. Otherwise it is no longer law.“
Confident, the lawyer believes that the hearing has “rather well” : “The answers provided by Stéphane Sieczkowski-Samier prove that he had a total absence of intention to commit the slightest offense. However, for an act of embezzlement of public funds to be characterized, two things are necessary: a material element and an intentional element, I do not think that they manage to show the existence of both.“
It will be up to the Douai Court of Appeal to decide on the characterization of this fact of embezzlement of public funds. She will deliver her judgment on April 13th.
–
Continue reading on these topics
–
–
