The deputy declared that she had reimbursements of expenses deemed not linked to the exercise of the mandate of deputy – and this after a control of the ethics of the National Assembly.
Le Monde with AFP
The alert had been given by five of his former collaborators. The deputy of Hérault Coralie Dubost, delegate president of the La République en Marche group (LRM) at the National Assembly, was pinned for the expensive use of her advances in mandate fees and her human management of certain collaborators, according to A survey published Friday April 29 by Mediapart .
The facts reported in this investigation, which she disputes, are listed in the report of a human resources firm transmitted in the spring of 2021 to the Ethics of the National Assembly, following reports of former collaborators. These accuse him of having imposed them “tasks under the personal sphere”, words and behaviors “devaluing”, but also a “conflict of values” or “ethical” in particular on the use of his advances in costs of mandates.
Lingerie purchases, “cash advances”
It is notably a question of “monthly clothing expenses according to a range ranging from 1,500 to 2,000 euros” or “very significant restaurant costs”, explains the report. According to Mediapart, M Me Dubost, for example, spent up to 3,300 euros in clothing and accessories in October 2018, “on online sales sites such as private selling, trends or trends or trends or trends or trends or trends or trends or trends Private showroom. (…) The following, the bill reached 2,500 euros, especially with brands like Sézane or The Kooples “, specifies the online media.
Questioned by Mediapart, she replied that she had made these purchases in the context of her mandate: “I do not put the same affairs in my personal life and in my life as a mandate”. Contacted by the France-Presse agency, the deputy did not follow up in the immediate future.
In 2018, Coralie Dubost also “used more than 500 euros of public money in lingerie brands (Princess Tam.tam, Darjeeling)”, reports the online media. Purchases justified by the deputy explaining that it was “cash advances, when you need something at the last minute and that you do not have your personal card on you”.
M me dubost, who like each deputy has a mandate fee of 5,373 euros monthly, to which is added his elected remuneration, told Mediapart having proceeded to reimbursements of expenses deemed not linked to the exercise of the deputy’s mandate – and this after a control of the ethics of the National Assembly for the years 2018 and 2019.
of “inappropriate requests” to His employees
The report of the HR firm also evokes “inappropriate requests”, such as “the regular and frequent realization of (…) tasks” unrelated to the work of parliamentary collaborator – personal purchases for the elected representative, surveillance of staff of house or the completion of domestic tasks. M Me Dubost challenged these allegations. They also list requests related to “personal purchases, bring them back or have them delivered”. “That could have happened [but] there was no instruction on my part, it was presented in the form of a service,” justified Coralie Dubost in Mediapart.
The advance of mandate costs replaced the controversial IRFM, an envelope which was not controlled and gave rise to drifts, from the purchase of televisions to the payment of vacation for example. At least fifteen parliamentarians or ex-parliaments have been the subject of preliminary investigations for possible illicit uses of their mandate costs between 2012 and 2017. Among them are the centrist senator of the Marne Yves Detraigne, the former deputy From Paris and ex-boss of the Socialist Party (PS) Jean-Christophe Cambadélis, as well as the deputy of Hauts-de-Seine and advisor to Emmanuel Macron Thierry Solère, already prosecuted in particular for “tax fraud”. The latter was thus indicted in February for “embezzlement of public funds”, for “passive influence traffic” and for breaches of declarative obligations to the High Authority for the transparency of public life. The elected official is notably suspected of having drawn from his mandate costs to pay fines, current costs or even subscriptions to organizations.