Former minister Rachida Dati and ex-CEO Carlos Ghosn face Paris corruption trial
Rachida Dati and Carlos Ghosn are on trial in Paris for alleged corruption and illegal lobbying on behalf of Renault-Nissan while Dati served as a euro-deputy.
Rachida Dati, a 60-year-old former justice minister, has been summoned to the Paris criminal court on charges of passive corruption and illicit influence linked to Renault-Nissan during her tenure as a member of the European Parliament from October 2009 to February 2013. Prosecutors contend that a lawyer’s fee agreement she signed with the alliance’s Dutch entity, RNBV, was a cover for lobbying activities prohibited for euro-deputies.
Dati’s defense team maintains she performed legitimate legal work and will call witnesses to confirm her actions. The trial also involves former Renault-Nissan chief Carlos Ghosn, who has asked for a postponement and is ready to testify via videoconference from Beirut, asserting his right to a rigorous legal process. Dati’s mayoral mandate for Paris’s 7th arrondissement is at stake, with a potential five-year ineligibility penalty. The investigation was originally triggered by a 2019 raid on Renault’s headquarters following Ghosn’s arrest in Japan.
Why it matters
The case highlights potential abuse of political office for corporate gain and could remove a high-profile mayor from office.
How the sides frame it
HIGH AGREEMENTBoth camps report the same trial facts, but left-leaning coverage highlights Dati’s efforts to stall the case, while right-leaning coverage stresses the prosecutors’ allegations and the defense’s claim of legitimate work.
LEFT
Focuses on Dati’s attempts to delay the proceedings and the extensive legal maneuvers she employed
RIGHT
Centers on the corruption charges, prosecutors’ narrative, and the defense’s assertion of legitimate activity
The left emphasises
- Dati "aura tout fait pour retarder cette échéance judiciaire"
- her lawyers filed 42 appeals and procedural requests, "allongé la procédure"
The right emphasises
- charges de "corruption passive" et de "trafic d’influence passif"
- les procureurs affirment que l’accord de frais d’avocat était une couverture pour du lobbying interdit
- la défense soutient qu’elle a effectué un travail juridique légitime
In this story
