{"id":8806,"date":"2017-01-20T11:03:05","date_gmt":"2017-01-20T16:03:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/english.cpnn-world.org\/?p=8806"},"modified":"2026-01-30T16:55:38","modified_gmt":"2026-01-30T15:55:38","slug":"luxleaks-the-case-and-the-latest-news-from-luxembourg","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/english.cpnn-world.org\/?p=8806","title":{"rendered":"LuxLeaks: The case and the latest news from Luxembourg"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION<\/p>\n

Extracts from the website to Support Antoine Deltour<\/a><\/p>\n

LuxLeaks is the disclosure of hundreds of tax agreements between Luxembourg authorities and multinational companies, bringing to light a large-scale tax avoidance planning. LuxLeaks is also the name of the investigation conducted by the l\u2019International Consortium of Investigative Journalism (ICIJ)<\/a> on the disclosed documents.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
\nMe Philippe Penning, Antoine Deltour, and Me William Bourdon \u00a9 Comit\u00e9 de soutien \u00e0 Antoine Deltour \u2013 CC BY-SA 4.0
\nClick on the image to enlarge<\/center><\/p>\n

LuxLeaks “dropped the bomb” and provoked many indignant reactions all over the world. By bringing the tax rulings issue to the worldwide governing authorities \u2013notably the G20 Brisbane Summit and the European Commission\u2013 it fostered democratic discussions that will progressively lead to reinforce fiscal justice.<\/p>\n

Antoine Deltour, [along with Rapha\u00ebl Halet] is one of the whistleblowers behind the disclosure of many of the LuxLeaks documents. Today Antoine is on trial in Luxembourg. He needs your support!<\/p>\n

Read more on Wikipedia<\/a>.<\/p>\n

LuxLeaks Appeal trial: Fifth and last hearing<\/strong><\/p>\n

The LuxLeaks appeal trial ended on January 9th. On the agenda of the day: the replies from all sides to prosecutor indictment and to the defendants\u2019 lawyers\u2019 pleadings.<\/p>\n

Some forty supporters came from France and a few others from Germany, Belgium, and Luxembourg.<\/p>\n

Prosecutor\u2019s reply<\/p>\n

Prosecutor Mr. John Petry begins his reply by recognising Antoine Deltour and Rapha\u00ebl Halet as whistleblowers: according to him, \u201cthe public interest is not subject to interpretation\u201d. However, apprently trying by all manner of means to justify the conviction of Antoine, he considers that they \u201ccan\u2019t benefit from full protection\u201d because they do not meet all the criteria established by the European Court of Human Rights\u2019s jurisprudence. Petry particularly blames Antoine for not being \u201canimated with the intention of a whistleblower\u201d at the time he copied the documents. <\/p>\n

Considering the prejudice caused, the prosecutor asserts that \u201cthe end doesn\u2019t justify the means\u201d: the \u201cLuxLeaks operation\u201d would have \u201cnamed and shamed the professionals and clients\u201d and would therefore be considered disproportionate in the light of its public interest. <\/p>\n

Only the massive and public feature of the revelations seems to cause problem to John Petry, who even asserts that \u201cif the documents had been used only for the \u2018Cash Investigation\u2019 broadcast, acquittal could be a serious option\u201d.<\/p>\n

Concerning Raphael Halet, Prosecutor Petry simply considers that the documents he copied would be \u201cirrelevant\u201d, and that their disclosure was \u201cnot a necessity\u201d. The acquittal would therefore not be justified.<\/p>\n

Finally, in the case of the journalist \u00c9douard Perrin, Prosecutor Petry says he is \u201cvery embarrassed\u201d by an appeal that he does not consider \u201cjustified\u201d. He recognizes that \u201cthe indictment of a journalist in a democratic society should be an exception\u201d, he asks \u2013unsurpringly\u2013 for the acquittal of \u00c9douard Perrin.<\/p>\n

Plaintiff\u2019s reply [Editor\u2019s note: The plaintiff, PwC, is PricewaterhouseCoopers, the second largest professional services firm and one of the four largest accounting firms in the world.)<\/p>\n

Mr. Hansen, plaintiff PwC\u2019s lawyer, maintains his position: \u201cThe defense wants to make us believe that an individual conception of morality can be a justification for violating the law\u201d. Then he tries to challenge Antoine\u2019s defense in relation to the European Court of Human Rights\u2019s jurisprudence and reaffirms that Antoine had \u201cno whistleblowing intention at the time he robbed the documents\u201d. Furthermore, Hansen believes that Antoine \u201cgave no consideration to the interests of his employer\u201d. Hansen considers that the damage caused to his client represents \u201cseveral thousand hours of work lost\u201d, and that, if PwC\u2019s turnover has increased, it is \u201cin spite of the theft of documents, not because of theft\u201d.<\/p>\n

Considering Rapha\u00ebl Halet case, the plaintiff\u2019s lawyer reproaches Halet \u2013as the prosecutor\u2013 of having \u201cbrought nothing to the public debate\u201d.<\/p>\n

In concluding, Hansen gave a rather vindictive reply. He called on the Court of Appeal to uphold the civil judgment and to recognize PwC as a \u201cvictim\u201d.<\/p>\n

(Article continued in the right column.)<\/p>\n

(Click here for the French version<\/a> of this article.)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Question(s) related to this article:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n

\n

Free flow of information, How is it important for a culture of peace?<\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

The courage of Mordecai Vanunu and other whistle-blowers, How can we emulate it in our lives?<\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

(Article continued from left column)<\/p>\n

Reply of Antoine Deltour\u2019s lawyers<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mr. Philippe Penning, Antoine\u2019s Luxemburgish lawyer, begins by recalling the almost daily progress on tax transparency, which are \u201cthe consequences of the LuxLeaks affair\u201d. He then asks, bewildered: \u201cDeltour\u2019s hesitation and the efficiency of the LuxLeaks revelations would lead him to his loss? There is a serious problem!\u201d. The Luxemburgish lawyer also calls on his compatriots to avoid any \u201cself-protection reflex\u201d; He asserts that \u201cLuxembourg survived the war and the oil shock and will survive the end of mass tax rulings\u201d. The audience applauds.<\/p>\n

Mr. William Bourdon then takes the floor. He welcomes the fact that the appeal process has brought \u201cbetter legal questions than at the first instance\u201d and denounces an \u201cintellectual kidnapping\u201d used as a last resort to \u201ctake the judicial scalp of Antoine Deltour\u201d. He strongly contests the need to add a \u201ccriterion of determination\u201d to justify whistleblower\u2019s good faith, even considering that such jurisprudence would have \u201cdamaging, terrible, irrational, perverse, and toxic consequences!\u201d. He recalled that several months before the documents were copied, Antoine already proved his intention by signing a blog comment with the signature \u201cInsider, maybe future whistleblower\u201d.<\/p>\n

Mr. Bourdon denounces the plaintiff that has difficulty in justifying itself, he ironizes on the so-called prejudice by questioning: \u201cWhat is this mute assembly of hurt clients? Not even one document can prove a prejudice!\u201d.<\/p>\n

Mr. Bourdon concludes by stating that \u201cin order to be consistent with the European Court of Human Rights\u2019s jurisprudence, the Court must acquit Antoine Deltour\u201d. New round of applause.<\/p>\n

Reply of Rapha\u00ebl Halet\u2019s lawyers<\/strong><\/p>\n

After a short break, the hearing resumes with the reply of Mr. Bernard Colin, for the defense of Rapha\u00ebl Halet. Colin comes back widely on his denunciation of the illegality of tax rulings\u2019 practice in Luxembourg before 2014. Returning in detail to the \u201clegislative loophole\u201d governing Marius Kohl\u2019s work at the famous Bureau #6, Mr Colin believes that, \u201cby giving the keys to PwC\u201d, the rule of law has been flouted. He calls for the acquittal of his client.<\/p>\n

Ms. May Nalepa, second lawyer of Raphael Halet, emphasizes the irony of the reproaches made to Deltour on the massive nature of his revelations, and on the opposite, the reproaches made to Halet on the lack of substance of his leaks: \u201cthe next whistleblower will have to be a real tightrope walker to find out the right balance!\u201d.<\/p>\n

Reply of \u00c9douard Perrin\u2019s lawyers<\/strong><\/p>\n

Unsurprisingly, \u00c9douard Perrin\u2019s lawyers greet the prosecutor who said he was \u201cembarrassed\u201d by the appeal on their client. Ms. Christel H\u00e9non and Mr. Olivier Chappuis affirm that it would even be \u201cunthinkable\u201d that Perrin be convicted of common law offenses. They naturally call \u201ca last time\u201d for the journalist\u2019s acquittal.<\/p>\n

The final words to the defendants<\/strong><\/p>\n

Antoine Deltour speaks first. He begins with confirming his declaration done during the first instance: \u201cI followed a citizen\u2019s approach\u201d. Antoine recognizes that he \u201cdid not anticipate the repercussions of the LuxLeaks affair\u201d \u2013no one could\u2013 but he insists that he had \u201cobviously intended to draw attention to these practices\u201d. Fearing for his employability or possible legal consequences, Antoine says he could \u201cnot act hastily\u201d. As to the proportionality of the damage caused, he recalls that the options for disclosure devised by the prosecution would doubtlessly not have resulted in such a clear public interest.<\/p>\n

Antoine then concludes: \u201cI wouldn\u2019t understand a condemnation for having acted as a citizen concerned about the general European interest\u201d. Sustained applause in the room.<\/p>\n

Rapha\u00ebl Halet then speaks up, very incisive: \u201cThis trial should be that of tax evasion and the people who covered it!\u201d. Halet insists on Marius Kohl\u2019s administration as a \u201cblack hole\u201d. He finally concludes: \u201cCondemning the messenger has never brought victory to a war. On the contrary, it should be the war against tax evasion!\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u00c9douard Perrin finally speaks briefly, humbly presenting his apologies to Halet and Deltour \u201cfor having brought them in this judicial adventure\u201d. The journalist wishes to thank the two whistleblowers, who have \u201cacted in the general interest\u201d.<\/p>\n

Verdict on March 15th<\/strong><\/p>\n

Today\u2019s very dense hearing ends the appeal LuxLeaks trial. Mr. Michel Reiffers, President of the Appeal Court, announces that he defers decision of the verdict. The judgment will be delivered on March 15th, 2017.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s hope for the acquittal of the three defendants!<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION Extracts from the website to Support Antoine Deltour LuxLeaks is the disclosure of hundreds of tax agreements between Luxembourg authorities and multinational companies, bringing to light a large-scale tax avoidance planning. LuxLeaks is also the name of the investigation conducted by the l\u2019International Consortium of Investigative Journalism (ICIJ) on the disclosed … Continue reading LuxLeaks: The case and the latest news from Luxembourg<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[75,15],"tags":[33],"class_list":["post-8806","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-europe","category-information","tag-europe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/english.cpnn-world.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8806","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/english.cpnn-world.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/english.cpnn-world.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/english.cpnn-world.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/english.cpnn-world.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8806"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/english.cpnn-world.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8806\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":38514,"href":"https:\/\/english.cpnn-world.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8806\/revisions\/38514"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/english.cpnn-world.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8806"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/english.cpnn-world.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8806"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/english.cpnn-world.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8806"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}