Through Normandy editorial staff
Published on
–
–
–
Monday, October 4, 2021, the former employee of a flexible company appeared in the court of Rouen (Seine-Maritime), accused of embezzling large sums of money using the company’s software, by carrying out fake hydraulic key drives. Three men were also prosecuted, for having acted as intermediary, or benefited from part of the sums embezzled.
54 keys invoiced … never delivered
On July 13, 2016, the company Flexi France, a specialist in hose lines for gas and oil, filed a complaint for fraud against one of its employees, but also for concealment and complicity in fraud, against two partner companies and against the employee’s spouse. The company reports in its letter having noted in May 2016 “significant overruns” on an account reserved for maintenance. After an internal investigation, the company noted numerous anomalies on the purchase of hydraulic wrenches purchased € 5,000 each. Indeed, the company explains that it only needs this material “very occasionally”, and orders “very little each year”. However, the latter notes that “54 keys were invoiced between 2014 and 2016, and were never delivered”. Flexi France explains that it discovered that the keys were ordered by a “shipper” through colleagues “that she handled”. Flexi France adds in its complaint that the fictitious orders and phantom deliveries were placed with one of its suppliers, and figures the amount of this scam at € 268,756 excluding VAT.
The investigators in charge of the case discovered a rather well-run stratagem: “The employee ordered products from the supplier in a fictitious way, who then edited delivery notes which were also fictitious, and invoiced everything to the company Flexi France. The booty was then shared between the main defendants. Thus, the employee would have received more than 100,000 €, the supplier the sum of 60,000 € and the manager of another company the surplus ”. The latter, who died during the investigation, will never be prosecuted. Placed in custody, each of the other suspects disputes the charges.
“I was a spendthrift”
At the hearing, the main defendant acknowledges his responsibility: “We had an arrangement, I created an order that I had my colleagues validate, then I sent it by email to our suppliers who then took charge of buying them and to deliver us, but in the end nothing happened. “Asked about the reasons for her taking action, the defendant explains having acted” to help the company of her friend in difficulty “, but admits to having also acted on her own account:” I was a spendthrift, I wanted to recover financially. “
Asked about the complicity from which she benefited, the mis en cause tells to have informed the commercial director of the company involved, and ensures “that without him nothing would have been possible”: “He paid our gifts and our advantages by over-invoicing the controls, ”she adds. Her husband admits having taken advantage of the scam by receiving gifts from the same sales manager: “He gave us multiple gifts, I thought he was doing this to stay in the good graces of Flexi France. “The commercial director disputes the facts of complicity in fraud and assures” that he only placed orders on specific parts without checking anything “. Asked about the edition of the fictitious delivery notes, the man maintains that they were not false, but his explanations are hardly convincing. His brother, co-manager of the company, disputes the concealment of fraud explaining “that he has never had to do with the company in question”. He indicates that when he received payment from the company, “he legitimately believed that the equipment had been delivered”.
Represented at the hearing, the company becomes a civil party through its lawyer who seeks reimbursement of the embezzled sum as well as € 15,000 in moral damage and legal costs.
For its part, the public prosecutor admits that the file is “complex” with a “particular” mechanism set up by an employee “knowing the company perfectly”. He believes that it results from the evidence that the swindle was set up after “a consultation between the defendants”. For him, the explanations of the commercial director “are not credible”, recalling that his name was found on “a notebook where his percentage share was mentioned”. Concerning the co-manager, the representative of the company considers that although being involved “indirectly”, the latter “took full advantage of the scam”. It requires against the defendants sentences ranging from two years ‘suspended imprisonment to six months’ suspended imprisonment and fines of between 10,000 and 3,000 euros. He also asks that each of the defendants be banned from running a company permanently, and the deprivation of their civic rights for five years.
“Not the Bernard Madoff of Caudebec-en-Caux”
The lawyer for the commercial director and the co-manager do not see the case in the same way as the prosecution. Indeed, the latter consider that this one, “long of 2888 pages”, is not supported. They believe that nothing demonstrates the involvement of their customers and seek release. The couple’s counsel is asking for a warning sentence in view of the lack of criminal records of its clients. He explains that his client “is not the Bernard Madoff of Caudebec-en-Caux” and ensures that the supplier involved must take responsibility for his actions: “Their turnover during the events went from 200,000 to 900,000 € in only three years, and thanks to the company Flexi France ”. The board said it was convinced that the participation of the two other defendants was only intended to maintain a good commercial relationship with the company Flexi France, before adding “that the supplier is already the subject of legal proceedings for similar facts ”.
The court will render its decision on November 29.
From our correspondent Frédéric Bernard
Has this article been useful to you? Please note that you can follow 76actu in the Mon Actu space. In one click, after registration, you will find all the news of your favorite cities and brands.
–
