The Paris Court's Ruling

Here is a summary of the verdict and sentences in the Paris trial of Scientology. I have laid it out in the same style I used for What the Prosecution Wants to give you an idea of how far the court followed their recommendations.

Perhaps the most important feature of the judgment is what the court did not do: it made no direct ruling that would restrict the activities of either the Celebrity Centre or the SEL bookshop.

But the following individuals and organisations were convicted of organised fraud against some, but not all the alleged victims (of which more below):

The Association Spirituelle de l’Eglise de Scientologie CC (ASES), the Celebrity Centre, was convicted of organised fraud against the plaintiffs Aude-Claire Malton and Eric Aubry.

It was fined 400,000 euros and ordered to pay for the details of the conviction to be published in the major French and English-language news outlets including Le Monde, Le Figaro, Libération, the Herald Tribune and Time Magazine – and their websites.

Scientology’s network of bookshops Scientologie Espace Librairie (SEL) was also convicted of organised fraud against Malton and Aubry. It was fined 200,000 euros and ordered to pay for the publication of the conviction in the same newspapers and their websites.

Both organisations were also required to publish details of the conviction on their own websites for a period of two months.

These were the sentences for the individual defendants charged on this count, against either Malton, Aubry or both plaintiffs:

• Alain Rosenberg, the managing director of the Celebrity Centre, was convicted of organised fraud against Malton and Aubry; and of complicity in the illegal exercise of pharmacy. He received a two-year suspended prison sentence and a 30,000-euro fine;
• Didier Michaux, the bookshop’s star salesman, was convicted of organised fraud against Eric Aubry – but cleared on the same charge relating to Aude-Claire Malton. He received an 18-month suspended sentence and a 20,000-euro fine;
• Jean-François Valli, the other bookshop salesman, who also did work for the Celebrity Centre, was convicted of organised fraud against Aude-Claire Malton – but cleared on the same charge relating to Aubry. He received an 18-month suspended sentence and a 10,000-euro fine;
• Sabine Jacquart, who was president of the Celebrity Centre, was convicted of organised fraud against both Malton and Aubry; and of complicity in the illegal exercise of pharmacy. She received a 10-month suspended sentence and a 5,000-euro fine;
• Aline Fabre, who supervised the Purification Rundown at the Celebrity Centre, was convicted of the illegal exercise of pharmacy. She was fined 2,000 euros;
• Marie Anne Pasturel, who acted as an intermediary for G&G in France, taking orders for the vitamins required for the Rundown, was convicted of the illegal exercise of pharmacy and fined 1,000 euros.

All the defendants charged in relation to Pierre Auffret and his company Parangon – the Celebrity Centre, the bookshop SEL, Rosenberg, Jacquart, Valli, Michaux – were acquitted.

The court took into account the fact that Auffret himself had not filed a complaint: and he had insisted to investigators that any payments he had made were made willingly.

For the plaintiffs:

Aude-Claire Malton

On the fraud conviction:

Michaux, Rosenberg, Valli and Jacquart, as well as the Celebrity Centre and the SEL bookshop were ordered to pay Malton 6,000 euros between them in material and moral damages.

On the convictions relating to the illegal exercise of pharmacy:

Fabre, Jacquart, Pasturel and Rosenberg were ordered to pay Malton 450 euros between them in material and moral damages.

All the defendants, including the two organisations, were ordered to pay Malton 750 euros each towards her legal costs.

The National Council for the Order of Pharmacists (CNOP)

On the convictions relating to the illegal exercise of pharmacy:

Fabre, Jacquart, Pasturel and Rosenberg were ordered to pay 8,000 euros between them in damages to the CNOP.

They were also ordered to pay between them a sum not exceeding 2,000 euros for the publication of the judgment in Le Quotidien des Pharmaciens (presumably the profession’s daily journal).

The four defendants were also ordered to pay the CNOP 1,250 euros each towards legal costs.

UNADFI’s application for plaintiff status

The court rejected an application by UNADFI, France’s federation of counter-cult groups, to become plaintiffs in the case.

The court accepted defence arguments that while the organisation had changed its statutes to qualify as a plaintiff, at the time of the events in question it did not qualify. (That would however appear to leave the door open for a fresh application at a future trial.)

For the plaintiff Nelly Reziga

Although she was accepted as a plaintiff in the case, Max Barbault, the defendant charged with regard to her complaint, died before the case came to trial. That effectively ended her status as plaintiff.

Neither Alain Rosenberg nor Anne Marie Pasturel attended the hearing.

The court also rejected a request by lawyers for the defence to reopen the debate. Maître Patrick Maisonneuve had announced the move in the wake of the political row that blew up in September over the change of law that removed the option of shutting down an organisation convicted of fraud. (The prosecution had recommended that this law be used against Scientology, unaware that the law had been changed just weeks before the trial.)

The defence bid was opposed by Maître Olivier Morice for the plaintiffs, and the court rejected it on the grounds that it mentioned nothing that would add to what had already been debated during the trial.

Despite the guilty verdict and the fines, there were plenty of smiles on the defence side during the reading of the verdict.

Maître Maisonneuve for the Celebrity Centre and Maître Louis Pamponet for the bookshop SEL (I think it was him) both looked extremely relieved – presumably because there was no direct attempt by the court to restrict the activities of either organisation.*

Outside the court however, Maisonneuve said that they would be appealing the verdict.

---

* What the convictions do mean is that they will have to change their way of conducting business of course: being clear about the link between Scientology and the personality test, for example.

But it also raises the question of how they are going to be able to continue with the Purification Rundown, at least as set down in Hubbard's guidelines, without being liable for another prosecution.

This will require a closer reading of the judgment.