In September 2018 two leading figures in the wine region of Saint-Émilion near Bordeaux – one of the most prestigious in France – were placed under formal investigation over claims of an illegal conflict of interest. Just under a year later, on August 16th 2019, the two men, Hubert de Boüard de Laforest, aged 63, co-owner of the Château Angélus and a consultant wine expert and Philippe Castéja, 70, owner of the Château Trottevieille and a leading wine merchant, were sent for trial. They are accused of helping to draw up rules about what qualifies as a top-ranking Saint-Émilion wine while at the same time benefiting from those same rules as wine producers.
However, in a curious and highly unusual move, prosecutors in nearby Bordeaux in south-west France appealed against the judge's decision to send the two leading winemakers for trial. Deputy prosecutor Anne Kayanakis insisted in a report last December that there was insufficient evidence against the wine experts and producers and that the case should be dropped. Normally in France, in those few cases where prosecutors disagree with an independent investigating judge over the need for a trial, the prosecution usually waits for the trial before voicing its objections.
Now, in another twist, a separate prosecutor at the court of appeal in Bordeaux has insisted that Hubert de Boüard and Philippe Castéja should indeed be sent for trial. In a pleading seen by Mediapart, the court of appeal prosecutor argues there is enough evidence to suggest the two men “had taken or kept an interest in the classification of Saint-Émilion wines, the oversight of which they had charge of”. The case to decide whether the affair should go to trial will be heard before the Bordeaux court of appeal on March 5th.
Even if the decision for the case to go to trial is upheld, the two men could still appeal to France's top appeal court, the Cour de Cassation. That could delay by up to a year a case that has already been dragging on since 2013 and which has involved three different investigating judges.
The case first started on April 15th 2013 when three winemakers from the Saint-Émilion made an official complaint to prosecutors. Pierre Carle from the Château Croque Michotte, André Giraud Château La Tour du Pin Figeac, and Jean-Noël Boidron, of the Château Corbin Michotte estate or domaine, had all been removed from or downgraded in the most recent classification of Saint-Émilion 'grand crus' or great wines which took place in 2012. The ranking of a vineyard's wine can have an enormous impact on the price it sells for.
Enlargement : Illustration 1
The three winemakers took their complaint about how the classification was arrived at to the administrative courts, and that case is still on appeal. A group of winemakers had managed to get the previous classification of 2006 annulled.
But in April 2013 the trio also made a complaint to local prosecutors over an alleged “illegal conflict of interests”. When this met with no response they themselves deposed an official complaint later that year over the alleged criminality.
Those three winemakers claimed that the classification of wines and vineyards in 2012 was changed to help the big wine producers. The new rules included the requirement for the land owned by the wine estate to be in one contiguous bloc and not divided, for the estate to have a meeting room and bedrooms for clients, and for the land not to be too moisture-retaining. They also claim that some of the criteria for the classification were, unbeknown to them, only set down after wine producers had made their classification applications. And they say that the absence of pesticides in vineyards was not sufficiently taken into account as a criteria in the classification.
The two men now accused of being behind the changes, Hubert de Boüard and Philippe Castéja, are as influential as they are rich. The investigating judge who sent them for trial suspects them of having taken advantage of their many official functions to add value to their own wine estates.
On the one hand the men are said to have taken part in formulating and approving the new rules for the 2012 classification for the 'Saint-Émilion grand cru' AOC (appellation d’origine contrôlée) wines. And on the other they are accused of having taken part in the classification process itself, before it was officially approved by the state, even though they had direct or indirect interests in it.
The ranking that a wine estate occupies in the Saint-Émilion grand cru classification can double its – or halve – its value overnight and huge amounts of money are at stake. For example, one hectare – 2.47 acres – of the Château Angélus estate is worth ten million euros.
Enlargement : Illustration 2
During the classification process between 2007 and 2012, Hubert de Boüard held a number of important functions and positions in the world of wine. He was a member of the national committee of the Institut National de l'Origine et de la Qualité (INAO) which regulates the quality of French produce, was president of INAO's regional committee, president of the local wine representative body the Organisme de Défense et de Gestion (ODG) de Saint-Émilion, manager of the Conseil des Vins de Saint-Émilion, president of the Groupement de Premiers Grands Crus Classés de Saint Emilion, a member of the Conseil Interprofessionnel des Vins de Bordeaux, a leading member of the Confrérie des vins de Saint-Émilion, vice-president of the Union des grands crus de Bordeaux, director of the Fédération des grands vins de Bordeaux and a member of the Confédération Nationale des Producteurs de vins et eaux-de-vie à Appellations d’Origine Contrôlées.
The gendarmes from Bordeaux who have been investigating the case since 2013 found that Hubert de Boüard was present during almost all of the stages of the Saint-Émilion grands crus classification by dint of his INAO and ODG functions, from the approval of the rules and the appointment of members of the classification committee and its president, up to the approval of the classification list and it being sent for ratification by the state.
Hubert de Boüard is suspected of having been both a judge and an interested party in the proceedings, as he has a major personal interest in the 2012 classification of the Saint-Émilion grands crus. He is co-owner of the Château Angélus which rose that year to the top of the winemaking hierarchy with a new rank of 'premier grand cru classé A', and is also co-owner and overseer at the Château Bellevue which went up in the classification, as did the châteaux Pressac and Ferrand where he was also a consultant. Other wine domaines where he acted as a consultant, Grand Corbin, La Commanderie, Clos des Jacobins and La Rose, meanwhile preserved their classification.
The other accused, Philippe Castéja, also occupied a number of important positions during the preparation of the 2012 classification. He was a member of the INAO national committee, president of the Conseil des Crus Classés en 1855, chairman of directors at the wine merchants Borie-Manoux, an overseas trade advisor, and owner of several châteaux. In the 2012 classification Château Trottevieille, which he owns, maintained its position as one of the 'premiers grands crus classés' or top wines from the Saint-Émilion area.
Philippe Castéja has denied any conflicts of interest. And during questioning Hubert de Boüard said he had not taken part in an INAO discussions relating to Saint-Émilion, and denied suggestions that he had any influence on the 2012 classification.
-------------------------
If you have information of public interest you would like to pass on to Mediapart for investigation you can contact us at this email address: enquete@mediapart.fr. If you wish to send us documents for our scrutiny via our highly secure platform please go to https://www.frenchleaks.fr/ which is presented in both English and French.
-------------------------
- The French version of this article can be found here.
English version by Michael Streeter