The Minister of Labor Olivier Dussopt announced this Friday, February 3 to AFP that the National Financial Prosecutor’s Office (PNF) had retained the offense of “favoritism” in the case of two works of art received as gifts in 2017.
Suspicion of “corruption”: the home of Minister Olivier Dussopt searched
In a briefing note addressed to his lawyer, “the prosecution considers that there is only one grievance, in this case a formal offense of favoritism in a 2009 public contract”Olivier Dussopt told AFP, adding that“no corruption” is not blamed on him.
A preliminary investigation for illegal taking of interest had been opened against Olivier Dussopt, concerning two lithographs by the painter Gérard Garouste which had been offered to him by a company in 2017, when he was deputy and mayor of Annonay. The investigation was to verify possible facts of ” corruption “ and of “illegal taking of interest”.
Contract signed with the company six months later
In his statement to AFP this Friday evening, the Minister of Labor – on the front line on the disputed pension reform – indicates that the PNF “did his job and carried out an investigation and multiple investigations which brought to light five possible grievances”.
“My oral and written expressions have largely convinced the Public Prosecutor’s Office”who “considers that four out of five of these grievances have no substance and has closed them without further action”. “I am therefore not accused of any corruption”adds the former socialist.
Olivier Dussopt: from the left of the PS to the macronie, the ardor of the convert
These two lithographs had been offered by a local manager of Saur, a French water treatment group, when a contract was about to be concluded between the town of Annonay (Ardèche) and this company. The contract, negotiated since 2016, was formally signed six months later, on June 1, 2017.
Olivier Dussopt then explained that he had not declared these lithographs to the ethics officer of the National Assembly – as is required for any gift of more than 150 euros – because it “did not know the value” of the two tables. He then returned them.
