Wednesday, April 1

Aristophil case: the importance of knowing with whom the investor is involved!

In this case, the Court of Appeal of Besançon rejects the appeal of an investor against a firm of CGP in Pontarlier, estimating that no document establishes a contractual relationship between them providing for investment in purchase of manuscripts from ‘Aristophil.
By a contract entitled Coraly’s Prestige signed in February 2013, Marcel acquired from SAS Aristophil two parts of an undivided property on a set of manuscripts of € 15,000, for a total of € 30,000. In September, the construction company managed by Marcel also acquired from Aristophil two shares of another joint ownership for an identical amount of € 30,000.
A year later, having wished to use the contractual possibility to resell its shares to Aristophil at their purchase price plus the promised substantial interest (8.5% per annum), this SARL received at the end of 2014 a check of 30,000 €, but not provisioned. Marcel learns then that Aristophil undergoes a criminal investigation and that his judicial liquidation was pronounced by the commercial court of Paris in August 2015. comment défiscaliser en immobilier
Marcel and his SARL X (the X consorts), estimating to suffer damage and the imputant to his consulting firm in wealth management who would have advised them this investment, have put him on notice to declare to his insurer the sinister, then have summoned him in compensation for the CGP’s refusal to compensate them. investissement défiscalisant
Disappointed by the TGI of Besançon, the interested parties appealed citing a breach of the duty of warning imposed by Article L.533-12 of the Monetary and Financial Code, while they declared themselves “profane in matters of speculation on ancient manuscripts “and, above all, that they did not know that the reliability of the Aristophil society was the subject of alarming suspicions on the part of the Autorité des Marchés Financiers and the press.
As for him, the firm of CGP denies having played a role in the conclusion of the investments, being limited, affirms it, to address general information relating to various financial products; he considers that he has warned well, which he “was not obliged to do”.
The Besançon Court of Appeal in its decision refuses the involvement of the firm of CGP, “the appellants bring no direct evidence” that this firm has had them invest in these indivisions proposed by Aristophil. They do not present any mandate or other written agreement of a nature to establish a formal contractual link between them. “Consequently, for lack of having demonstrated that the company (de CGP) had intervened in the transactions in question as a financial service provider within the meaning of Article L.533-12 of the Monetary and Financial Code, or to any other title imposing on him an obligation of warning to the investors, (Marcel and his company) do not establish to have been creditor of the obligation to the non-respect of which they impute their damage “.
In this case, the appellants do not produce any warrant or other written agreement between them and the CGP firm. “On the contrary,” note the judges, the documents presented appear as the only intermediary between them and Aristophil a mysterious AP Consulting company to which investors have agreed in March 2013 “a search warrant of art products and collectibles in the framework of a Coraly’s Prestige contract “.
This case also highlights the difficulty of alerting investors who are too naive. Since 2007, the AMF had tried to prevent risks but his statement at the time disappeared from his site, no text, then stressed the lawyers of Aristophil, allowing at that time to warn a company offering this type of investment (explanations can be found on the website of
A site called Bakchich has since 2010 relayed questions about this placement; in April 2011 it was the consumer association UFC Que Choisir that evoked these “strange investments”, Jean-Pierre Rondeau, president of the Compagnie des CGPI supporting this warning. Two years later, in February 2013, Aristophil continued to ravage savings, the current damage amounting to nearly € 1 billion!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *