Following Mediapart's publication on February 26th 2025 of an article entitled titled “The unlikely tale of a French 'spy' butler, a Russian oligarch and a UK intelligence company”, Jim Perrichon sent us the text below as his right of reply:
*
I am writing this right of reply under my full name, Jim Perrichon, because I have never requested anonymity.
Furthermore, I find it rather embarrassing to allow Sergei Pugachev the privilege of being the only one to publicly give his full name in this case, as it suggests that he would be the only one speaking openly while I would try to hide.
ln an email dated January 15, 2025, just two days before my first CRPC hearing (a plea bargain procedure before the Prosecutor), the journalist, whom I assume to be the same person who contacted me because the first name was different from the one given in the article, sent me a list of 74 questions with a threatening tone, giving me only a few days to respond. After the CRPC hearing was unexpectedly adjourned, I told her in an email dated January 20, 2025, that I did not wish to comment on these matters.
The article's "black box" then, very laconically, states that I would have "preferred to respond with a question about an alleged tax fraud by Pugachev to the detriment of the French tax authorities."
However, it was only because Ms Leroyer replied that her questions remained and that she had "not yet completed [her] research" that I suggested she inquire into the origin and possible declaration to the wealth tax of the $700 million in bank assets for which the compliance service of a Swiss bank had been convicted on May 31, 2021, by the Swiss Federal Criminal Court for failing to report suspicious transactions to the Swiss authorities concerning accounts linked to Sergei Pugachev. I therefore sent her the internet link to the article in Le Temps (a Swiss newspaper).
I should point out that my intention was not to create a diversion, as the article's "black box" suggests, by implying that I would have "preferred to answer with a question."
On the contrary, I felt it was useful to offer the journalist questions other than the sometimes very personal ones she had listed, to refocus on the facts contained in my CRPC file, which she seemed to have read. lndeed, during my hearing before the Nice police, I did discuss Panamanian companies which I had discovered in 2015 during my work with the Pugachev family. This Swiss conviction is a direct result of the Panama Papers, as the Swiss press article very factually states. Since the journalist clearly had access to the minutes of my hearings, it wasn't irrelevant to submit this questioning and this link to her.
Next, I would like to correct three inaccuracies in this article:
1) There was never the slightest evidence of dangerous devices under Sergei Pugachev's car in London, contrary to what he uncontradictory daims in the article, suggesting that 1 collaborated with people who might have attempted to kill him or his family.
2) I have nothing to do with the PNF investigation against Sergei Pugachev.
3) Contrary to what the article might suggest, I was not convicted of stealing a car, but of stealing information (which I recognize). I am not even aware of an alleged complaint filed in 2015 for vehicle theft.
1) The "devices"
The 14th paragraph of the article (page 2 if printed) is composed of three sentences, the first of which states: "Jim P. now became the eyes and ears of both Diligence and the Russian Deposit lnsurance Agency within the Château de Gairaut, even though Pugachev still believed he had a safe haven in Nice." And the third concludes, quoting Sergei Pugachev: "'Then I discovered devices under my cars - including the one that took my children to school. I returned to France to save my skin,' he explained."
The following paragraph daims that the English courts condemned this hasty departure from London by sentencing him to two years in prison for contempt, "while at the same time acknowledging the seriousness of the threats against his personal safety."
The article therefore suggests that I collaborated with dangerous people, which is false. lndeed, there is no doubt that the term "devices" used in such a sentence is a prudent shorthand for "explosive devices." The journalist may even have thought this credible, because in his complaint in the CRPC file, Sergei Pugachev daims that a "UK counterterrorism police report" proves the existence of "bombs" under his vehicle.
Yet, if the newspaper had done its investigative work, it would have asked to see this alleged document, or even simply asked Sergei Pugachev for a full copy of the judgment. They would then have had proof that this danger was completely fabricated.
The judgment is cited as: "High Court Judgment 8 February 2016 [2016] EWHC 192 (Ch)." lt is available online at the National Archives website (https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/). The English judge, far from recognizmg, "the importance of the threats to his persona! security" in relation to Pugachev's departure from London as thearticle suggests, clearly indicates in his point 92 (Contains information licensed under the Open Justice - License v1.0):
« 92. S015 must have been fully satisfied that the devices were not dangerous. If there had been any possibility of the devices posing a danger to Mr Pugachev, his family, or members of the public using the garage where the cars were stored then their discovery would have led to their immediate isolation and removal. No one would have left them in place for days or weeks. ln my judgment Mr Pugachev has seized on the discovery of these devices as a purported justification for his departure from the jurisdiction and has accorded them an importance for the purposes of this committal application far beyond any significance that he or anyone else accorded them at the time. »
Furthermore, the contempt for which the English courts convicted Sergei Pugachev in this same judgment, not only punishes his departure from England, as the article again wrongly states, but also a number of cover-ups especially financial that contextualize the purpose of the investigative work in which I wanted to participate.
The offense for which I was convicted was the theft of information. The recipient of this information, although located in Moscow, was none other than the Russian Deposit lnsurance Agency (DIA) in connection with bankruptcy fraud proceedings, as the journalist herself pointed out a few paragraphs earlier.
Any threats, real or supposed, against Sergei Pugachev therefore have no connection with me or my actions.
2) The National Financial Prosecutor's Office ("Parquet National Financier" - PNF).
I did not initiate the PNF investigation against Sergei Pugachev, and I don't even understand what document could have given the journalist such an idea. I have indeed been in contact with the PNF regarding another tax fraud committed by other Russians, as exposed in the criminal file, but this case has nothing to do with Sergei Pugachev. I did report to the police that "Sergei Pugachev was manipulating French journalists," as the article says, but that had nothing to do with the PNF.
lt's entirely possible that Sergei Pugachev's complaint against me inadvertently triggered a tax investigation. I am simply not involved in this event.
3) The alleged car theft
The "car theft" story is pathetic to say the least, and I will try to answer succinctly.
First, I am not even aware of an alleged complaint from 2015 for vehicle theft, and the €250,000 in moral damages that Sergei Pugachev is claiming in the civil proceedings are linked to an entirely different complaint.
Furthermore, I have electronic messages from October 2015 proving that security at the Château de Gairaut refused to open the gates for me when I returned with the vehicle after announcing my resignation. So, it wasn't I who "disappeared with the car for forty-eight hours," as the article daims. lt was Sergei Pugachev who refused to open the castle gates to prevent me from returning the vehicle, exacerbate the situation, and thus refrain from paying my final salary. This final salary was, of course, never paid.
My departure from the castle was also tense, due to Sergei Pugachev's numerous unpaid bills, not only to the castle staff, but also to the detriment of the Côte d'Azur SMEs, whose bill amounts I have kept to this day. Having left the castle, it took me months of efforts to defend these French campa nies and get all their outstanding bills paid in 2016.
lt should be noted that these unpaid bills were not the result of England freezing Sergei Pugachev's assets, as the article might suggest. The English judgment allowed him to access £50,000 per week for his regular living expenses, on the sole condition that he discloses where these funds came from.