At the close of hearings, Le Pen’s defence lawyers told the appeals court that she did not organise a system to embezzle European funds. Her lawyer, Sandra Chirac Kollarik, said: “At no moment did Marine Le Pen imagine that she broke the rules,” adding that Le Pen would never have knowingly accepted a false contract.
Le Pen, 57, has denied orchestrating a fake jobs scheme involving European Parliament assistants. She told the court that all assistant contracts were transparent and that she did not believe any crime had been committed.
The leader of the anti-immigration National Rally (RN) had been among the leading contenders for the presidency until March last year, when she was convicted in the so-called fake jobs case and barred from holding public office. Judges ruled she had been “at the heart” of a carefully organised system that diverted European Parliament funds between 2004 and 2016.
She was sentenced to four years in prison — two suspended and two to be served outside jail with an electronic bracelet — fined €100,000, and banned from running for office for five years with immediate effect.
Le Pen, a trained lawyer, appealed the ruling, seeking to overturn both the conviction and the sentence. The appeals court’s decision, due on 7 July, will be decisive for her political future and whether she can attempt a fourth presidential bid. If she is barred, she is expected to be replaced as candidate by her protégé and party president, Jordan Bardella, 30.
Last week, state prosecutors asked the appeals court to uphold the five-year ban on Le Pen’s eligibility. Prosecutors argued she had been at the centre of a “planned”, “centralised” and almost “industrial” system that siphoned off public money intended to pay assistants based in Brussels or Strasbourg, instead funding party staff in France in breach of parliamentary rules.
They estimated the loss to European funds at €4.8 million, saying the party — then known as the Front National — made substantial savings through the scheme. Prosecutors also criticised Le Pen for attacking judges publicly after last year’s verdict, rejecting her claims of a “tyranny of judges” and insisting the courts were simply applying laws passed by parliament.
The judges will now deliberate over the coming months before delivering their ruling.
