Paris: President Emmanuel Macron of France was in India last week for the AI Summit but also to close a lucrative sale. Prior to his arrival, the Indian establishment sought to drum up some excitement by announcing that the Indian Air Force would soon be acquiring 114 more French-made Rafale combat aircraft. What Indians don’t know – and the Narendra Modi government certainly won’t tell them – is that a Paris-based prosecutor, Virginie Tilmont, is still continuing her probe into alleged corruption in the earlier sale of 36 such planes, finalised via an MoU with India in January 2016.A source familiar with the National Financial Prosecutor’s (PNF’s) office disclosed to this reporter that police investigators assigned to it had extensively interrogated Julie Gayet, wife of former French president François Hollande.The source shared excerpts of the minutes of Gayet’s questioning spread over three days, which sought to probe whether Indian businessman, Anil Ambani – who benefitted from an offset contract from the deal between Modi and Hollande – attempted to get into the latter’s good books via Gayet. Hollande’s then partner, now wife, denied this.The fact that Anil Ambani’s firm had helped fund one of Gayet’s films was first reported by Sushant Singh in the Indian Express on August 31, 2018. ‘Rafale talks were on when Reliance Entertainment helped produce film for François Hollande’s partner,’ the newspaper’s headline had said. Days after this report appeared, the French media platform Mediapart spoke to Hollande about a possible conflict of interest. This is when Hollande dropped a bombshell of his own: that it was the Modi government which had insisted Anil Ambani be designated Dassault’s offset partner for the deal: “We didn’t have any say in this matter,” Hollande told Mediapart. “It is the Indian government which had proposed this service group, and Dassault who negotiated with Ambani. We didn’t have the choice, we took the interlocutor who was given to us. That’s why, also, this group had no reason to give me any grace [favour] of any sort. I could not even imagine that there was any link with Julie Gayet’s film.”Police from French financial prosecutor’s office question GayetTowards the end of 2024, Pascal Fontenille, divisional commander, assisted by Sophie Paesbrugghe, a captain, both on deputation to the judicial police force at the disposal of the prosecutor’s office, carried out what the French politely call an ‘audition’.It began by Gayet being asked about her occupation. She replied, ‘I work as an actress, producer and director (in) film, theatre and audio-visual (productions).’ She further stated, ‘I am unknown to the police, gendarmerie and the justice services,’ – meaning she has no criminal record. She was given a choice between making a declaration or answering questions. She preferred the latter.File photo of Julie Gayet. Wikimedia.In due course, the interrogators asked how Ambani came to fund a film in which Gayet was involved.The interrogation was in French. Here are machine-translated extracts:§Question: Explain to us how the Indian company RELIANCE BIG ENTERTAINMENT came to contribute Euro1.65 million to the film’s budget? [This was the movie called Tout La-Haut, or All the Top)Answer: I think it was VISVIRES (a co-producer) who made the connection with RELIANCE… I think RELIANCE had the idea of having Kev Adam (a French filmstar) make an Indian film in BOLLYWOOD. Furthermore, RELIANCE had just bought DREAM WORKS (in the United States)… Given the international nature of the film, there was an opportunity for RELIANCE to sell domestically (in India)… So it was Elisa (SOUSSAN, who was, according to Gayet, putting the financing together) via David BARROT of MY FAMILY (a previous production), who informed me that RELIANCE could provide financing through VISVIRES.Q: Are you aware of the ties between VISVIRES CAPITAL FRANCE and Indian businessman Ravi VISWANATHAN?A: Well, I don’t know the ties at all, but I thought that in VISVIRES, there was a bit of Ravi’s name in the company name (VIS). I must have gotten this information either from Mr Viswanathan himself or from someone at MY FAMILY. The first time I heard about Mr Viswanathan was through an email from Elisa and David Barrot, asking me to meet with the partner Reliance. In this email, there was a transfer or copy of a previous exchange between Viswanathan and Elisa and David Barrot, which announced that Anil Ambani was coming to Paris and he wanted to meet with MY FAMILY and ROUGE INTERNATIONAL (Gayet’s company)… As for the meeting between Anil Ambani, Elisa, David (I think) and me, I can’t give you a date. I don’t remember the date, but it was after the deal had been approved and after Reliance was participating in the financing even though the contract hadn’t been finalised. For me, attending this meeting was just a polite presence and at the request of Elisa and David. This meeting took place at the Bristol (Hotel).Q: You answered our last question… by indicating that during the dinner you hosted in your private apartments [at the Elysee Palace] with Anil Ambani, President François Hollande did not recognise him. However, could he have been unaware that Mr Anil Ambani was going to finance your film?A: Yes, he could have been unaware, and I would like to point out that we did not discuss the film’s financing during the meal.Q: How do you explain that a sitting President of the Republic, a President whose close ties to Mr Michel Sapin (minister of the economy) are well known, and who would promulgate the Sapin II law (a comprehensive anti-corruption Act) during his term, would agree to dine in his private apartments with an individual who had not been vetted by the Elysee Palace staff, a individual whom you tell us he did not recognise?A: Well, I cannot speak for him. Private dinners were declared to the President’s office so they could be included in his agenda. This bypassed protocol and advisers. I should point out that I sometimes hosted dinners in the private apartments [at Elysee] without giving the names of my guests to protocol or anyone at the Elysee Palace. This dinner took place at the Elysee, but it could have been held at my home in the 11th arrondissement. I remind you that I suggested this dinner because Mr Ambani had mentioned this private trip for his son.Q: Aside from the fact that the lack of background checks on Mr. Ambani could have constituted a significant security breach, can you confirm that this wasn’t done by the Élysée Palace staff?A: I have no idea.Q: The following contacts were found on your mobile phone during the search on September 6, 2023 (screenshots attached to the ROUGE INTERNATIONAL search report): Anil AMBANI, Anshul AMBANI, Shibashish SARKAR (with the notation RELIANCE), and Ravi VISWANATHAN. Having them in your contacts implies a certain relationship with them, so what topics did you discuss with them?A: Anil AMBANI, as I told you previously, we don’t really have a relationship. That is to say, I don’t know his wife, contrary to what has been reported in the Indian newspapers. He wished me a happy new year for a few years, as a sign of our good relationship following our meeting. I only saw Anil Ambani three times: first at the Bristol Hotel with the production of “My Family,” at the dinner we already mentioned, in the presence of his son; and the third and final time was in India when I filmed my documentary on the role of Indian women. This last meeting was purely out of courtesy because I was in India. I was the one who contacted him to let him know I was there. I met him in his office. I want to emphasize that I never discussed funding or money with Anil Ambani. Regarding his son, Anshul Ambani, I only saw him once, at the dinner we discussed earlier. We exchanged numbers to arrange tickets for the Euro match in Lyon and in case he had any problems. I don’t know Shibashish Sarkar at all. It was an assistant of Anil Ambani, who was more in contact with Kev Adams and My Family, who contacted me to organize the meetings with Anil. To me, he’s an assistant with a secretarial role. The first name Ravi appeared in emails where I was only copied, and at the time I didn’t pay attention. I only really became aware of him when he and Elisa Soussan organized the first meeting with Anil Ambani at the Bristol Hotel. However, I spoke to him on the phone afterward, and that’s when I learned he represented Visvires; in fact, I was told that Vis represented part of his name (Viswanathan)… I discovered that his wife was French and that she was coming to Paris with their child. So, I suggested to Ravi that we organize a visit to the Eiffel Tower, which took place with Ravi, his wife, and their child present. He’s the one I have the closest connection with, as he’s quite friendly. However, he only came to see me once at my office after that visit.Q: Who is this Tony Jesudasan? A: The name rings a bell, but I can’t remember why. He might be someone who was connected with Anil Ambani.Q: A photograph taken on April 26, 2016, by Ms. SOUSSAN (the photograph we are showing you) shows you alongside Anil AMBANI. At whose request was this photo taken? For what reasons? For what purpose? Why is there no similar photo of Ms. SOUSSAN alongside Anil AMBANI?A: This photo was taken at the Bristol. I remember another photo, a group photo, was taken with Lisa, David BARROT, Anil AMBANI and me. It was a keepsake for Anil AMBANI. I believe these photos were taken with Anil AMBANI’s phone, as they were taken at his request. You are asking why there is a photo of Anil AMBANI and me, but not a photo of Anil AMBANI with Elisa. I’m not sure such a photo doesn’t exist, and I even think it does. In any case, a group photo definitely exists.Q: What was the purpose of this meeting on April 26, 2016?A: At Ravi Viswanathan’s request, the meeting was to meet the co-producers and allow Anil Ambani to meet Rouge and My Family.Q: How do you explain, if Anil Ambani isn’t a close friend, that he sent you a WhatsApp message on April 12, 2020, wishing you a happy Easter, that you replied the same day that François Hollande had just lost his father, and that, in response, Anil Ambani conveyed his condolences to him through you (screenshots attached to the Rouge International search warrant)?A: It was during lockdown. And automatically, Anil AMBANI would send me text messages for New Year’s Day and my birthday. Since it was during lockdown, I suppose Easter was an opportunity for him to check in on me. I always tried to reply to these kinds of texts briefly and politely, as I do with everyone I have this type of relationship with. When you’re a public figure, you get a lot of messages from people, and I try to respond properly.Q: Reading a WhatsApp conversation from September 2018 between you and Ms. SOUSSAN, it appears that you asked her to say that the link to RELIANCE came from MY FAMILY; why did you ask her to do this?A: Because it’s the truth. I had just been accused by Mediapart of having a connection to the sale of the Rafale fighter jets. I was stunned, and for me, it was important to set the record straight.Q: Why, in September 2018, following the publication in India of press articles linking the financing of your film to the inter-governmental agreement for the sale of Rafale aircraft to India, were you so insistent that it be clearly stated in the French press that RELIANCE had been brought in by MY FAMILY and not by you or your company, ROUGE INTERNATIONAL?A: Because RELIANCE was interested in this film for Kev Adams, and it was MY FAMILY that handled all the negotiations and secured the financing with all the partners, including VISVIRES-RELIANCE, but also with all the others. I haven’t produced any other films with VISVIRES-RELIANCE, whereas for AMIS PUBLICS, a film prior to MY FAMILY, NJJ and VISVIRES were already involved as financiers. I remind you that I was not involved in the film AMIS PUBLICS. Furthermore, as I told you, I was very shocked by MEDIAPART’s insinuations. I even discovered that MEDIAPART was making videos in English about the Rafale fighter jets and that they were talking about me in an attempt to launch their media outlet internationally.Q: On August 12, 2020, Anil Ambani sent you a text message (via WhatsApp) wishing François Hollande a happy birthday; then on June 9, 2022, five days after your wedding in Tulle (19), he congratulated you and François; finally, on June 28, 2022, he asked for your address to send you a gift for your son’s wedding. What event could have led Anil Ambani to behave in such a familiar and intimate manner with you and François Hollande?A: I want to clarify that none of my sons are married. I would also like to add that I have never received a gift from Anil Ambani. I believe he was simply trying to be polite to me.Q: How do you explain receiving a text message on May 9, 2022, from someone named Tony Jesudasan, claiming to be an advisor to Anil Ambani, asking you to convey his birthday wishes to President Hollande, and reminding him that he was still at your disposal?A: I haven’t the slightest idea. I have no connection whatsoever with this Tony Jesudasan. I don’t know, and I don’t believe I replied to that text message. After the Mediapart articles, I didn’t want to be associated with those people, without meaning to be disrespectful.Q: Generally speaking, did you discuss the Rafale fighter jets about to be acquired by India with Anil Ambani during any of your meetings?A: Never.Q: Generally speaking, did you hear your husband, François Hollande, discuss the sale of the Rafale jets to India with Anil Ambani during any of your meetings?A: Never.Q: According to an email seized during the search of the company MY FAMILY (seal no. MY FAMILY/UN), you sent the text of a press release to Ms. Soussan, presumably for her approval, in which you stated that Rouge International had never had any relationship with Reliance Entertainment. Can you explain the context of this press release?A: I confirm that I sent this email; it was after (the) Mediapart (stories). It was important to put things in context. And since Elisa had led all the negotiations, it was better for the press release to come from My Family and not from Rouge International. Elisa Soussan fully agreed and even asked me to prepare the press release together. Everything was done with her approval.Q: Was this communication necessary because you found yourself in a conflict of interest situation, being, according to the Indian press, the partner of President Hollande, who had benefited from funding from Reliance Entertainment, a company owned by Mr. Ambani, who was also involved, through one of the Reliance group’s subsidiaries, in the compensation scheme supposedly proposed by the Indian government in the intergovernmental agreement allowing the sale of Rafale aircraft to the IAF?A: For me, the Mediapart article was such a surprise, I was so completely taken aback, that it seemed important to put an end to these insinuations directed at me and at Rouge. This statement seemed necessary, the simplest and most effective way to stop the insinuations.Q: What do you know about meetings that allegedly took place between Mr. Anil Ambani and advisors to Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian in March 2015, specifically on March 23, 2015?A: Nothing, I know nothing. I have never had any contact with Le Drian, whom I met for the first time at the end of François’s term at the Élysée Palace.Q: What do you know about a meeting that allegedly took place between Mr. Ambani, accompanied by one of his staff members, and Mr. Macron in early 2015, in his office as Minister of the Economy, Industry, and Digital Affairs at the time?A: Nothing.Q: What can you say regarding the transition from an Indian market to an intergovernmental agreement (IGA)? Had you heard about this change?A: Nothing.Q: Do you have anything else to add?A: No, except that I read in the Indian press that I was friends with Anil Ambani’s wife, someone I’ve never met.§Background to the French probe: How the Rafale deal went from 126 to 36A procurement of 126 fighters was clearly incorporated in a 2014 Memorandum of Understanding between the public sector Indian manufacturer Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and Dassault of France when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government was in office. This was dumped by Narendra Modi in 2015 and replaced eventually by a government-to-government deal.In India, complaints about corruption in Modi’s deal were, unsurprisingly, brushed aside. In France, though, a determined Tilmont, has pursued investigation of alleged wrongdoing. Such diligence has conveniently been concealed in India by a compliant media. Indeed, interesting inquiries have been pursued without the knowledge of the public in either India or France.It may be recalled that Yashwant Sinha, a senior cabinet minister in the BJP-led government of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Arun Shourie, another cabinet minister in the same administration, and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan lodged a complaint with the Indian Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in 2018 alleging violation of the Prevention of Corruption Act by Modi in his 2016 government-to-government contract with the French. Claiming that the CBI director was on the verge of taking action when he was rather unceremoniously removed from his post in October 2018, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has openly alleged that Modi had him removed because he was ‘scared of Rafale’.The matter was raised at the Supreme Court of India. But a three-member bench headed by the then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi dismissed petitions which sought a court-monitored probe into Modi’s agreement.It did not go unnoticed that within months of his retirement, Gogoi was offered membership of the Rajya Sabha, the upper house of parliament, by the Modi regime, which he accepted with alacrity.Indian probe still-born, French anti-corruption NGO filed caseMeanwhile, a French NGO, Asso Sherpa approached PNF, which tackles economic offences, to look into the Rafale India case in 2018 and 2019; but was unsuccessful in convincing the authority about the likelihood of a crime.In 2021, though, Sherpa finally managed to persuade PNF; and Tilmont opened ‘a judicial investigation for corruption, patronage and various financial offences likely to have occurred in the context of the sale of 36 combat aircraft produced by Dassault Aviation and sold to India in 2016’.The questions Sherpa asked included:Why was Ambani’s Reliance Group, which had negligible experience of defence production, and no background in aviation manufacturing, awarded such a prized off-set contract?Why was the price per aircraft in Modi’s arrangement practically three times more than what was negotiated during Singh’s dispensation?Was the Indian defence ministry’s negotiating team overruled by Modi’s PMO?Why was a standard anti-corruption clause in Indian defence agreements – introduced by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in the 1980s – deleted from Modi’s Rafale contract?Quite remarkably, the PNF instituted a judicial investigation in a case which accuses the incumbent and immediately preceding presidents of France, Hollande and Macron respectively, of dereliction of duty. Also in the dock is Jean-Yves Le Drian, who was until 2022 the French foreign affairs minister and as defence minister negotiated the Rafale India contract with the Modi government.The reason for the bold intent lay in the quite compelling circumstantial evidence submitted in the 35-page complaint by Sherpa. Central to the charge is the allegedly arbitrary appointment of Ambani’s Reliance Group as Rafale-maker Dassault Aviation’s offset partner in India; with the finger of suspicion pointing unmistakably at Modi.Sherpa’s allegations included corruption, influence peddling, favouritism and money laundering. But it’s the details substantiating such accusations that were devastating; thereby persuading an inquiry and, if there’s adequate evidence, prosecution.The French prosecutor was called upon to examine why the transaction lacked transparency and how a sale of 36 combat aircraft by Dassault for the IAF cost significantly more per unit compared to the previous quotation for 126 planes submitted to the Singh government. Was this meant to benefit Reliance and Ambani, asked. The latter is described in Sherpa’s complaint as ‘a close collaborator of Narendra Modi’.It further contended that Ambani’s Reliance was unqualified to become a partner of Dassault. And it was the choice of this entity that – in Sherpa’s assessment – raised suspicions.In addition to pointing out that the vastly experienced HAL – which was on the verge of signing a contract with Dassault – was jettisoned, Sherpa cited that Airbus, representing the German, British, Spanish consortium manufacturing the rival Eurofighter Typhoon (which lost out in the competition to Dassault), had written to the late Arun Jaitley on July 4, 2014, when he had additional charge of the defence ministry, in response to a request from him. The letter offered a 20% reduction on its previous price proposal, diversion of scheduled deliveries from Britain, Italy and Germany to meet urgent Indian requirements, establishment of a production plant in India and transfer of technology, which would have created 20,000 quality jobs.Besides, the NGO wondered how could there have been such a steep rise in cost per plane as compared to the original tender prior to technical enhancements to the aircraft. Sherpa also observed there was an off-set obligation of up to 50%, which in its view could have been a vehicle for funnelling of investment into a joint venture between Dassault and Reliance in India – Dassault Reliance Aerospace Limited (DRAL) – in which the latter enjoyed a 51% stake with a less than 10% financial pledge. It also questioned the suitability of Reliance as an associate in view of its known precarious financial state.On September 19, 2018 the French publication Mediapart quoted Hollande as saying Ambani’s name was ‘given to us’ by the Indian side. On October 10, 2018 Mediapart carried another story revealing that the director-general of Dassault Aviation, Loik Segalen, had deposed before French lawmakers that ‘it was imperative and compulsory for Dassault Aviation to accept this consideration (of Reliance as an off-set partner) in order to obtain the Rafale India export contract’. It now fell on the investigating court to decipher the full meaning of the two statements.Sherpa thought it is reasonable to believe that a person holding extraordinary authority in India facilitated unjustified advantage to Reliance and Ambani in contravention of unfettered liberty of market access to Dassault. It also asserted Reliance/Ambani benefitted and would continue to benefit as long as the DRAL compensation obligation remain.Mediapart maintained its exposure of documents also underscored Dassault’s questionable use of its middleman in India, Sushen Gupta. It published on April 4, 2021 that the French Anti-Corruption Agency (AFA) in auditing Dassault’s accounts discovered an outgo of half a million euros in favour of Gupta. This was allegedly 50% payment for 50 Rafale models to be distributed as gifts in India. But the AFA did not take Dassault to task.Enigma of absent ‘anti-corruption clause’ in Rafale contractThere was in any case no anti-corruption clause in the Franco-Indian inter-governmental contract, by virtue of which India could have obtained compensation in the event of corruption. The French negotiators reportedly worked relentlessly and successfully to eliminate this standard clause in Indian government defence contracts. The Indian Negotiating Team (INT) of the defence ministry is said to have been overruled on the matter. The powers-that-be also didn’t concur with the INT’s reported estimate of a fair price for the 36 planes being around 5.06 billion euros – fully fitted with the weaponry demanded by the IAF. Modi consented to dish out 7.8 billion euros.Sherpa’s executive director Sandra Cossart remarked at the time: ‘This case demonstrates the failure of today’s anti-corruption approach (on the part of French authorities).’ The NGO’s lawyers, William Bourdon and Vincent Brengarth, said the judicial exercise will involve ‘the identification of those responsible in what increasingly resembles a state scandal’.Dassault had told Mediapart: ‘No violations were reported, notably in the frame of the contract with India for the acquisition of 36 Rafales.’ However, the paper claimed it had secured ‘confidential documents’ which revealed ‘Dassault had in fact no interest in forming a partnership with Reliance other than for political reasons.’ Mediapart commented that the alliance with Reliance bought ‘political influence’ for Dassault. It mentioned that an agreement between the two firms, which was in its possession, assigned Reliance the responsibility of ‘marketing for programs and services with the GOI (Government of India)’.French investigators seized papers from DassaultThe offences mentioned in Sherpa’s complaint fell within 16 articles of the French Penal Code. It was supported by over 40 exhibits as evidence. As per French legal norms, the case was filed against ‘X’. “It is the duty of the judge and investigators to identify X. Suspects could be French, Dassault and Indians,” a lawyer told National Herald.Not unexpectedly, there has been no cooperation from the Indian government. Requests from the French prosecutor for access to files and documents related to the negotiations between the Indian and French sides and how the final terms and conditions of the contract were reached received no response. Ministries concerned simply sat on the prosecutor’s communications, without bothering to take any action. The French government, too, obstructed the inquiry on grounds of state interest.Having given the two governments and Dassault ample opportunity to answer questions, reveal relevant papers, the prosecutor searched the offices of Dassault and came away with reportedly actionable material. But the French government informed Tilmont she may not use the documents seized, because they were classified. So, a tussle has been underway between the French government and the prosecutor on this without as yet a resolution.What Tilmont has unearthed so far is a matter for conjecture. There is seemingly a paper trail of commission paid. Was this why the anti-corruption clause in the contract for 36 Rafales removed? Either way, the fact that an anti-corruption probe is underway in France and has involved the questioning of François Hollande’s wife is bound to cast a shadow over the latest Rafale deal on the anvil.Ashis Ray was editor-at-large of CNN. He is the author of The Trial that Shook Britain.