Testut: Tapie explains about a loan to OM. In Bethune the court examines the advance of 21 million granted to guarantee the purchase of two players.

The Valenciennes judges were confronted with a sporting logic where Players and club leaders recognized only sports law and not the law at all.

Those of Bethune face the same misunderstandings this time with commercial logic. Many of the lawyers present are more used to commercial courts than to correctional court hearings. And that the criminal court of Bethune can blame offenses that ultimately caused no commercial damage to the company Testut stupefies. That he considers that the very small number of leaders who share the responsibilities under various titles of the majority of Tapie companies can be implicated, even incarcerated, strikes them with misunderstanding.

Yesterday’s audience gave a perfect illustration of this conflict of logic. The debates were spent in advance of 21 million francs that Testut has granted to Olympique Marseille via a company of Bernard Tapie, the FIBT to guarantee the purchase of two players, Amoros and Mauser. It’s July 1989. It’s the beginning of the football season and Bernard Tapie is in a hurry. He wants these players, it takes 21 million francs blocked as a guarantee until the completion of the transfer to ensure that the club can afford to pay. The usual bank of OM refuses. Tapie then ordered this sum from Elie Fellous, at the time a big money-maker for the Tapie group, where he held the positions of director, general manager or “supervisor” in most of the group’s companies. And Elie Fellous turns to the SDBO which suggests to him at least that’s what he tells the court that just Testut has cash since a recent capital increase has temporarily cleaned up his accounts.

“It was a short operation, two months at most, and without risk because the OM had just signed an exclusive contract with Canal Plus of 45 million over three years. OM’s recipes were imminent. There was no risk. And better for Testut, this loan was paid, “tries to explain Elie Fellous in court. Commercially, a prudent operation and even profitable in his eyes. Judicial experts have described it as a “neutral operation”.

But for the court, it’s not the same.

What relationship do Mauser and Amoros have with Testut scales? What is the interest of Testut? And why is Testut’s treasury uncovered three days after the guarantee of 21 million, a discovery that will oscillate between 5 and 21 million during the three months? And why does no contract guarantee Testut that it will not pay any agios on this cash hole? In short, prejudice or not, for the court there is offense. The operation is an abuse of social good, that is to say, a use of the funds of a company for a purpose which has nothing to do with its object and which is even “contrary to its interests”. And all in “the direct or indirect interest of a leader”, in this case, Bernard Tapie who was at the time CEO of Testut and President of OM.

“I’m not saying it’s an orthodox operation,” Elie Fellous admits. I say that it is a risk-free and properly remunerated operation. “The Expert President, who knows his case very well, has some difficulty in finding the record of the remuneration of this loan- my sources http://ejscashsports.com/borrowing-income-with-bad-credit-ways-to-get-the-loan-you-need Ejscashsports. Finally, it is a discount on financial agios which served as remuneration.

Bernard Tapie, who decided to play low profile in this case, does one who is not aware of anything. “You are a leader of OM, Testut, and FIBT and you are not aware of anything?” Quips the prosecutor Bernard Henne. “No,” says Tapie. “And you do not want to know if the operation has come true.” “No,” Tapie repeats. “And in your opinion, a leader, what is it for?”, The prosecutor irritated. “A hierarchy.” Tapie just found his Nanard tone to close with a word: “You know at the time I run a group that makes 20 billion turnovers, so 21 million is a detail. And the benefit that Amoros and Mauser bring is far greater than the Testut inconvenience. ”

The judicial logic against commercial logic, Bernard Tapie learns from a trial on the other to rectify his mistakes. This time, no circus, no counter-hearing in the corridors, no controversy too long with the prosecutor. But Testut’s loan to OM is not the most difficult part for him, even if the abuse of good is legally established. The problems will come these days with the operations of buyback and resale of Trayvon, a subsidiary deficit, each time at the expense of Testut. There, even commercially, the defense becomes more difficult.