The Nancy public prosecutor's office on Tuesday requested
"confirmation of the judgment"
pronounced in first instance against the three defendants tried on appeal in the case of the potentially fraudulent purchase of the Château de La Rochepot (Côte d'Or) in 2015. At first instance, the main defendant, the Ukrainian Dmitry Malinovsky, absent from the hearing, was sentenced to four and a half years' imprisonment, including six months suspended, as well as a fine of 100,000 euros for money laundering, use forgery, possession of weapons and concealed work.
His former mistress, the Ukrainian Olga Kalina, was given a two-year suspended prison sentence.
Finally, the Moldavian Alexandru Arman, ex-driver of Mr. Malinovsky who became manager of the castle from 2016, was sentenced for misuse of corporate assets to six months in prison, four of which were suspended, as well as a ban on managing a business. for five years.
During his indictment, Attorney General Hadrien Barron portrayed the Ukrainian couple as
"picturesque characters"
,
"accustomed to a certain lifestyle"
, ironic about their
"expenses which may seem sumptuary to us, we poor judges and lawyers, (but) are housewives for them
.
Concerning the future of the 12th century Gothic castle, the attorney general subscribed to
“the option proposed by the liquidator”
:
“the confiscation of the castle in value, as well as the Royce Rolls and the Hôtel de La Rochepot”
, bought by the Ukrainian couple in the village.
The situation in Ukraine, “a central point of the file”
During the debates on Tuesday, Olga Kalina, who claims ownership of the castle, recognized that if the repurchase of the property, in 2015, indeed constituted an
“exotic economic operation”
, she assured that this choice had been made
“because of the Donbass war”
started in 2014, and that the funds came from the sale by his family of a factory in Ukraine.
But during the debates, the president
“strongly advised”
him against discussing military conflicts on Ukrainian territory, provoking the anger of defense lawyers, who requested his recusal.
“By forbidding us from discussing the situation in Ukraine in 2014 when it is a central point of the case, the president of the court has crossed the line,”
said Mr. Stéphane Bonifassi, lawyer for Olga Kalina.
“The court cannot dictate to the defense its means,”
he added, denouncing a
“particularly burdensome”
direction of the debates .
It is up to the first president of the court of appeal to rule on this request for recusal, which, if granted, will result in a referral of the case.