Watch counterfeiting – The biggest case ever tried (Part 1)

We have been following this case for several years. First, through contact with watch enthusiasts who had been defrauded with fake watches, then by agreeing to publish lists of “doublettes” on our social media to warn potential buyers. (We will explain later what the term “doublettes” means – Editor’s note). Then, two years ago, this case made headline news. A raid by Customs and the Police appeared in the regional press, and almost simultaneously Julien V. made the news on the Facebook group Club Rolex France.

Throughout this time, we consulted many people with information on the matter. Victims, official representatives of horological institutions, journalists, brand representatives, and others. But few had a firm grasp of both the subject matter and the sequence of events.

So we kept researching. Sources were fairly scarce, and above all imperfect. This is why we chose to wait before publishing anything on the matter. Because it was important to us to be as precise as possible, as close to the truth as possible, and able to help you make sense of the stakes involved in a case of this kind.

This is because it is the biggest watch counterfeiting case ever handled by a court. Not in terms of quantities, since entire containers have already been seized by customs authorities around the world, but because of its organisation, the sums generated, and the stakes that result from it.

Welcome to the first episode of the Julien V. case, named after the main defendant, who, as he has not yet been tried, is presumed innocent. We wish to stress this point, and will take all necessary precautions to remain as objective as possible. We will report the facts, analyse them, and attempt an assessment as informed observers. We will only disclose people’s names in the event of a sentence exceeding two years’ imprisonment, in keeping with the journalistic ethics we adhere to.

The case is being tried by the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris (the Paris Judicial Court), specifically its 13^ème chambre correctionnelle (the 13th criminal division), which specialises in what is known in France as “délinquance astucieuse” (sophisticated fraud).

8 defendants appear:

• Mr Florian R., currently in pre-trial detention.
• Mr Anthony P., appearing at liberty.
• Mr Yassine G., appearing at liberty.
• Ms Séphora O., appearing at liberty.
• Mr Kevin P., appearing at liberty.
• Mr Karim S., appearing at liberty.
• Mr Aurélien C., appearing at liberty.
• Mr Julien V., currently in pre-trial detention.

The parties to the trial are the above-named defendants, the public prosecution (Parquet), represented by the magistrates of the Ministère Public (public prosecutor), and the civil parties.

The following became civil parties:

• SAS Chanel
• SA Audemars Piguet Holding
• Direction Générale des Douanes et Droits Indirects (DGDDI, Customs)
• SA Fred Paris
• Rolex France
• SA Hublot
• SA Patek Philippe SA Geneve
• SA Omega
• Rolex SA Société de droit Suisse
• SA Turlen Holding

Defendants and civil parties are named in the order in which they appear on the court list (rôle du greffier) (the official document setting out the “order of the day”). Except for the defendants’ surnames, for the reasons mentioned above.

The charges brought against the defendants are as follows:

• Assisting the irregular entry, movement, or residence of a foreign national in France or in a State party to the Schengen Convention, committed as part of an organised group.
• Unauthorised interference with an automated data processing system, committed as part of an organised group.
• Money laundering: assisting in an operation to place, conceal or convert the proceeds of an offence punishable by no more than 5 years’ imprisonment.
• Active bribery: offering or providing an advantage to a person holding public authority.
• Passive bribery: soliciting or accepting an advantage as a person holding public authority.
• Possession, as part of an organised group, of counterfeit (trademarked) goods without valid supporting documentation: an act deemed to constitute smuggling.
• Fraudulent possession of data held in an automated personal data processing system operated by the State.
• Fraudulent possession of a forged administrative document certifying a right, identity, or status, or granting an authorisation.
• Possession, as part of an organised group, of goods bearing a counterfeit trademark.
• Conspiracy to obtain fraudulent access to an automated personal data processing system operated by the State.
• Fraudulent extraction of data held in an automated personal data processing system operated by the State.
• Habitual forgery of an administrative document.
• Fraudulent provision of administrative documents certifying a right, identity, or status, or granting an authorisation.
• Habitual fraudulent provision of an administrative document.
• Fraudulent introduction of data into an automated personal data processing system operated by the State.
• Participation in a criminal conspiracy (association de malfaiteurs) with a view to preparing an offence punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment.
• Handling goods derived from an offence punishable by no more than 5 years’ imprisonment.
• Handling goods derived from a breach of professional confidentiality.
• Refusal to hand over to the judicial authorities, or to implement, the secret decryption key for a means of cryptology.
• Fraudulent transmission of data held in an automated personal data processing system operated by the State.
• Sale, or offering for sale, as part of an organised group, of goods bearing a counterfeit trademark.
• Breach of professional confidentiality.

This lengthy list of charges against the defendants sheds light on the fact that organised crime is, indeed, well organised. With precise tasks assigned to each participant, and a multidisciplinary nature to the activity. This case involves forged papers, corruption, hacking, and numerous other activities. It could just as easily involve numerous other criminal activities such as child trafficking, as we will discuss later, and as raised by the presiding judge of the Court on the basis of a photographic exhibit included in the case file.

We therefore draw the attention of readers who might think that buying or owning a counterfeit watch is only mildly harmful, when in fact they would be complicit, indirectly certainly, but complicit nonetheless, in abominable acts. Counterfeits should not be confused with customisations.

We invite you to join us soon in our pages for the appearance of the two main defendants regarding the subject that interests us most: watch counterfeiting.

Frequently asked questions