The judgment in the Finaxiome case, a real estate fraud case on a national scale, will be rendered on November 17 at the end of the trial of four former managers of this company involving some 300 civil parties.
After a week of trial, the Amiens criminal court has reserved its judgment until November 17, at the end of five days of hearing devoted to one of the most significant real estate cases of the 2000s.
Three former leaders face up to three years in prison, while nearly 300 civil parties are still awaiting compensation.
VEFA
Founded in 2003 in Amiens and placed in liquidation in 2012 – when it filed for bankruptcy, the firm had a debt of 100 million euros –, the Finaxiome company had marketed thousands of apartments for sale off-plan (VEFA) throughout France. Its model was based on the tax exemption schemes then in force, with the promise of largely self-financed investments thanks to tax advantages and rental income. Except that the reality turned out to be quite different. Many programs have accused ofsignificant delivery delays and the housing often turned out to be largely overvaluedcompromising their resale and leaving many investors in a difficult financial situation.
The VEFA (Sale in the Future State of Completion) is a contract by which a buyer acquires a home before or during its construction. The developer remains the owner of the land and the project manager until delivery of the building, while the purchaser gradually becomes the owner as the work progresses. Payments are staggered according to calls for funds governed by regulations. © Laure Pophillat
False certificates to continue raising funds
At the heart of the case is a practice that the public prosecutor describes as a deliberate strategy. From 2006, when the company was experiencing serious financial difficulties, Finaxiome is accused of having produced false work progress certificates in order to release the calls for funds planned in the VEFA contracts. The sums thus collected would have been used to finance the company’s cash flow needs rather than the operations concerned.
For the prosecutor, the debates highlighted a multitude of “detailed, consistent and coherent testimonies“demonstrating a strategy”intended to deceive third parties“.
Three of the four defendants, now in their fifties, appeared for fraud and advance collection of funds. The fourth, one of the founders of the company who had left the company in 2009, was prosecuted for advance collection of funds and concealment of fraud.
Up to three years suspended prison sentence required
The prosecution requested three years in prison with a simple suspended sentence and a fine of 50,000 euros against two of the founders of Finaxiomeas well as a banned from working for five years in the real estate development sector. Two years suspended prison sentence, a 40,000 euro fine and the same professional ban were requested against the former works director.
On the other hand, the prosecutor requested the release of the fourth defendant, considering that his departure from the company in 2009 did not allow him to be held criminally liable.
The overall damage was estimated at 15 million euros, for nearly 300 civil parties.
“This is not a scam“
The defense lawyers, for their part, pleaded for the release of all of their clients, contesting any fraudulent intentions. “The alleged damages arise from delivery delays, themselves linked to the 2008 crisis and a change in tax legislation, and not from infringements“, argued Me Arthur Teisseire. His colleague Me Benoît Martinez recognized the existence of “certain anomalies“, while rejecting the idea of a fraudulent organization: “this is not a scam but a contractual non-performance“, he pleaded, refuting the existence of a “system“.
Conversely, the lawyers of the civil parties described the human consequences of a case which go far beyond just financial losses: divorces, depressions and situations of over-indebtedness. “We were waiting for the truth, we got some red herrings“and “chicken thieves postures“launched Me José Delfont in particular, denouncing “the devastating effect” choices made by leaders.
The judgment is expected on November 17, 2026. The victims’ requests for compensation will be examined later.
