The appeal trial of Swiss banking giant UBS for laundering, tax evasion and illegal canvassing opened Monday in Paris with procedural debates, two years after a first judgment which had imposed a record fine of 3.7 billion on the group. euros.
Read also: UBS on appeal to avoid a record fine
A masked crowd of lawyers, defendants and journalists settled at the beginning of the afternoon in the courtroom of the courthouse in Paris facing the magistrates, behind whom were stacked the heavy volumes of the file strapped in pockets green.
After recalling the first instance sanction, President François Reygrobellet asked the bank representative for the reason for his appeal.
"
UBS AG did not commit the acts with which it is accused
", she replied, just like the other defendants who affirmed their "
innocence
".
Sentenced on February 20, 2019 to the heaviest sentence ever inflicted in France in a case of tax evasion, the global heavyweight in wealth management immediately appealed by “
vigorously
”
contesting
the decision.
In this case, UBS is suspected of having, between 2004 and 2012, illegally sent its sales representatives to France to canvass wealthy clients of its subsidiary during receptions, sports tournaments or concerts, in order to convince them to open non-financial accounts. declared in Switzerland.
According to the prosecution, the bank had set up parallel accounting to hide these cross-border capital movements, dubbed “
milk books
”: a simple tool for evaluating bankers, maintains UBS, which also argues that no act canvassing is not established.
In addition to the main fine for UBS AG, suspended by the appeal, UBS France was fined 15 million euros in 2019 and five of six former executives tried with suspended prison sentences and fines ranging from up to 300,000 euros.
The Swiss bank, its subsidiary and three former executives had been ordered to jointly pay 800 million euros in damages to the French State, civil party.
All appear again until March 24.
On the first day of this second trial, the court considered procedural issues raised by the defense.
As in first instance, UBS France lawyer Eric Dezeuze raised a priority question of constitutionality (QPC), notably considering that the bank should have been prosecuted for another offense - the penalties incurred having "
no common measure
" .
Me Thierry Marembert, the lawyer for the former head of the UBS office in Lille Hervé d'Halluin, requested the annulment of the order for reference to the court, which was too "
imprecise
".
Two other counsel criticized the validity of the arrest warrant against their client.
