Off-Investigation.fr – Recovery following non-payment of wealth tax, non-declaration of a claim of 350,000 euros on his wife Brigitte, “breakdown” of nearly 1.5 million euros in three years (one minimum wage per day), a statement with little credibility on the fees received at Rothschild and co during a “deal” of 9 billion euros concluded in 2012, since 2014, the declarations of assets and interests of Emmanuel Macron raise many questions. Was he really poorer than Benoit Hamon and Nathalie Arthaud during the 2017 presidential election when he had made his fortune in the Rothschild and co bank? Has he always told the truth about his heritage? Investigation…
Since he became Minister of the Economy in August 2014, Emmanuel Macron’s declarations of assets and interests have been controversial. That year, he declared a modest heritage of 156,000 euros, less than Nathalie Arthaud or Benoit Hamon!
Without Philippe Poutou and his 31,000 euros in assets, Macron would have been the poorest of the 2017 presidential candidates. which will be valued at 1,453,000 euros in 2015, the Macron couple managed to never pay wealth tax between 2008 and 2014.
But by looking at the couple’s heritage, the tax authorities estimated in 2015 that the house in Le Touquet, belonging to Brigitte Macron, had been undervalued by 253,000 euros. Suddenly, the Macron had to pay the ISF three years late (4174 euros of recovery for 2013 and 2264 euros for 2014).
Once elected to the Élysée, Emmanuel Macron abolished the wealth tax and replaced it with a more conciliatory “Tax on real estate wealth”, at the risk of reinforcing a feeling of injustice already very present in the “France of down” and contributing to the outbreak of the revolt of the “Yellow Vests” in November 2018 (4,500 injured, millions of euros in damage).
A “forgotten” claim?
Another concern in Emmanuel Macron’s 2014 asset declaration: he recorded a debt of 350,000 euros in liabilities that he owes to Crédit Mutuel following a loan taken out in November 2011 to carry out work in the house in Le Touquet.
Problem: this real estate belonging to his wife Brigitte, the sums devoted by Emmanuel Macron for its renovation (350,000 euros according to his declaration of assets in 2014, 500,000 euros according to information communicated to the Sunday newspaper by the “Macron camp” in 2017) are similar either to a gift for his wife (but they were not declared as such) or to a loan to his wife.
But in this case, shouldn’t Emmanuel Macron have entered in the assets of his assets a debt of 350,000, even 500,000 euros on his wife? His net assets would then no longer have been 308,000 euros, but 658,000 or even 808,000 euros.
However, according to the law, “Not declaring, providing a false assessment of one’s assets or omitting a substantial part of one’s assets or interests is an offense punishable by three years imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 euros. A sentence of ineligibility of 10 years can also be pronounced as well as the prohibition to exercise a public function.
Seized of this problem in the spring of 2017 by Maître Jean-Philippe Delsol, a tax lawyer president of the Institute for Economic and Fiscal Research (IREF), the HATVP considered that there was nothing to cast doubt on Emmanuel’s declarations of assets. Macron.
A minimum wage per day spent?
Another implausibility: how to believe that the heritage of Emmanuel Macron was limited to 156,000 euros in 2014 when he had earned more than 3 million euros at the Rothschild bank between 2008 and 2012? If true, that would mean he spent nearly a minimum wage a day between 2009 and 2012.
Asked several times about these implausibilities, Emmanuel Macron replied that he had “done some work” and that he had “debted”. But in his 2014 declaration of assets, he nevertheless indicated that the work on the house in Le Touquet had been financed thanks to the 350,000 euros borrowed from Crédit Mutuel in November 2011!
As for the hypothesis of debt reduction, it is difficult to believe that it can explain the disappearance of the millions earned at Rothschild and co, since this “deleveraging” occurred following the sale of Emmanuel Macron’s Paris apartment, for 980,000 euros in 2015.
In addition, this “debt reduction” was only partial, since, in 2017, he declared that he still owed 246,000 to Crédit Mutuel and 53,000 euros in severance pay to the public service. Re-entering these questions in 2017,
Pfizer/Nestlé: the forgotten “deal”?
Last implausibility: how to believe that during the acquisition of the infant nutrition branch of the American Pfizer by the Swiss giant Nestlé, a huge “deal” at 9 billion euros in which Emmanuel Macron had played a key role in 2012 the within the Rothschild and co bank, he only received a few hundred thousand euros in fees, as he stated in his declaration of interest in 2014? For several experts we met, it is difficult to imagine that he did not earn much more.
According to the American site “Margin and acquisition source”, investment banks receive on average between 0.5% and 1.5% of “deals” over 500 million euros. Applied to the Pfizer/Nestlé “deal”, this ratio would give a commission for Rothschild and co of 45 to 135 million euros.
Emmanuel Macron having brought the Nestlé client to Rothschild and co (he had sympathized with his boss, Peter Brabeck, at the Attali commission in 2007) and played a decisive role in convincing the Nestlé board to put on table 500 million more than Danone to win the case, several experts we interviewed consider it highly improbable that he received only a few hundred thousand euros in this case.
According to a personality historically close to the Rothschild and co bank who agreed to testify on the condition that we preserve his anonymity,
The Élysée and Rothschild and co walled in silence
Asked about all these points, the communicator Olivier Labesse (DGM conseil), commissioned by the Rothschild and co bank to answer us, told us: “The fees paid to the company for an advisory operation, whatever its nature, are the responsibility of the customer.
They are therefore not intended to be made public. As for the Presidency of the Republic, in seven months of investigation for our series “Emmanuel, a businessman at the Élysée”, she never answered a single one of our questions, even when we mentioned the hypothesis that Emmanuel Macron could have received “fees” in a “trust” abroad following the Pfizer/Nestlé “deal”.
A refusal to take into consideration the investigative journalism common among Macronists, but problematic in democracy.
We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully InformedIn fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming educated opinion. In addition, to get a clear comprehension of VT's independent non-censored media, please read our Policies and Disclosures.
Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT. About VT - Comment Policy
Great report. The hiding on how much he got paid by Rothschild for the deal to be taxed which is is something that the entire world is doing and the Panama Papers exposed many of them is a non issue in the private sector. It’s only when civil servants claim that they want the good of the people but only defend the rich that it becomes an investigative issue. The revolving doors Washington style
are becoming a universal phenomenon.
Comments are closed.