Subsidized employment scam: Théo Luhaka and his brothers sentenced

The prosecution had underlined “the ingenuity of the system” which had led to the embezzlement of nearly one million euros in public subsidies intended to finance subsidized contracts for young people in difficulty.

At the heart of the case, the three Luhaka brothers who appeared last February with three other defendants pleaded "errors", "mistakes" and "bad decisions".

This Thursday, the Bobigny court sentenced all three of them.

Théodore Luhaka, 27, the youngest of the siblings who in the eyes of the general public embodies a symbol of police violence, received a twelve-month suspended sentence and a five-year ban on managing.

Since his violent arrest in February 2017, in Aulnay-sous-Bois, the young man has suffered from a permanent disability.

A terrible case in which three police officers are sent back to the Assize Court for intentional violence.

His eldest, Mickaël, 38, was prosecuted for having set up legal structures, in the football and street mediation sector, in order to receive subsidies for subsidized jobs.

But the employees concerned did not exist or only worked part-time.

He was sentenced to four years in prison, two of which were suspended, as well as a ban on managing for ten years.

His prison sentence will be arranged under surveillance under an electronic bracelet.

“I wanted to help,” Mickaël defended himself at the February hearing, his lawyer also putting forward a “social” project.

The third brother, Grégory, 31, was sentenced to two and a half years in prison, including a year and a half suspended.

Two other defendants were however released.

919,435 euros "which should have ended up in the pockets of young people in difficulty"

Me Antoine Vey, Théo and Grégory's lawyer had refuted any personal enrichment and any "very comfortable" lifestyle, as the investigators estimated.

"They live extremely modestly, light years away from the portrait that would justify condemning them to years of imprisonment," he pleaded.

We are not dealing with crooks guided by the lure of profit.

Have they understood the legal framework of subsidized contracts?

I do not think so.

»

A defense which was not sensitive to the court which noted the importance of the amount concerned.

A sum of 919,435.56 euros which “should have ended up in the pocket of young people in difficulty, as wages”, commented the court, in rendering its decision.

Will the parties involved appeal?

Too early to know.

“I have no reaction at this stage because I want to read the terms of the judgment before deciding what to do, simply reacted Me Antoine Vey.

We will analyze it, we will see the reasons, we will discuss it with our customers and we will see what action there is to take.

»