In replies to Mediapart’s questions about the issues raised in this report:
- A representative of the French public prosecution services’ financial crimes branch, the Parquet National Financier (PNF), sent the following response:
“In 2018 and 2019 the PNF received an alert from the Sherpa association. This alert led to a close analysis within the prosecution [unit].
It was found that none of the factual elements revealed by the association Sherpa justified the opening of a criminal investigation for corruption or illegal conflict of interest.
The decision not to proceed with this alert was taken by Madame [Eliane] Houlette [editor's note, then head of the PNF]. Nonetheless, she left open the possibility for the magistrates from the parquet général prosecution service [editor's note, at the courts in Paris] who took over in the interim at the PNF after her departure, to confirm or overturn her decision.
The decision not to pursue the alert from the Sherpa association was confirmed on July 15th 2019 by the two magistrates from the parquet général in Paris who were in interim charge at the PNF. [Jean-Luc] Blachon, in his capacity as deputy prosecutor, just formalised on an administrative level the decision taken in July 2019. Mr Blachon did not intervene in either the analysis or the legal handling of this alert.
I can point out that this alert ended with the case being closed through the absence of an offence.
Mr Bohnert did not need to have any knowledge of this case, as the analysis of the alert and the decision not to take it further had taken place before he was appointed as the Republic's financial prosecutor.
Concerning the request to send the investigation that was made by the association Sherpa, it was not materially possible to comply as it was not referred to any investigation unit and as a consequence no investigation was carried out. The association Sherpa was made aware of this information by letter in September 2020.
The decision not to proceed with the alert from the Sherpa association was the result of internal analysis at the PNF. I want to make clear to you that the Dassault company's lawyer was not interviewed by our prosecution service.
The Sherpa association was informed officially by the PNF on February 5th 2020 of the decision to not proceed with the alert that they had made. Since that time the latter has had the right to make a complaint as a civil party to an examining magistrate under article 85 of the CPP [editor's note, the criminal procedures code].”
[…]
Please note that it's always possible for a prosecutor to revisit a decision not to proceed with a case if he is made aware of new information. Indeed, Madame Houlette had envisaged that possibility in relation to this case. I can tell you, however, that no additional information has been brought to the knowledge of the PNF since July 15th 2019.”
- The prosecution services at the Paris courts, the parquet général, sent the following response:
“Following the denunciation on October 26th 2018 from the Sherpa association to the PNF calling for the opening of an investigation echoing requests made to the Indian legal authorities, the Republic's financial prosecutor concluded after analysis that there was an absence of any offence. The analysis of the Republic's financial prosecutor was not called into question by the advocates general who were in interim charge [editor's note, of the PNF] at this time. The prosecutor general [editor's note, Catherine Champrenault] was not asked to pronounce on this decision.”
- The press officer for French foreign affairs minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, who formerly served as defence minister under the presidency of François Hollande, sent the following response:
“As already indicated in 2018 when some of this information was published in the Indian press, we remind you that the intergovernmental agreement signed on September 23rd 2016 between the French and Indian governments for the supply of 36 Rafale aircraft to India relates solely to the obligations of the French government to ensure the delivery and quality of this equipment.
The French government is in no way involved in the choice of the Indian industrial partners who were, are or will be chosen by French companies. In compliance with Indian acquisitions procedures, French companies have complete freedom to choose the Indian industrial partners whom they consider to be the most relevant and then to present for the approval of the Indian government the offset projects [editor's note, the local contracts awarded by French companies in India as part of the contract] that they want to carry out in India with these local partners in order to fulfil their obligations in this respect.
In the present case, agreements were signed by French companies with a great number of public and private Indian businesses within the framework of Indian law. Mr Anil Ambani had had contact with the French administration, as is normal for the leader of a large foreign industrial group.”