Sonia Rolland indicted for “ill-gotten gains”

hard blow for Sonia Rolland. The 41-year-old former beauty queen is involved despite herself in the so-called “ill-gotten gains” affair of the late President of Gabon, Omar Bongo. According to information from Parisianthe actress of Criminal Tropics was indicted on Monday, May 30 for concealment of embezzlement of public funds, corruption and abuse of corporate assets. In question: a Parisian apartment located in the 16th arrondissement of Paris, given by Omar Bongo in 2003, and whose conditions of acquisition arouse the interest of justice. According to the judges, Sonia Rolland should have been interested in this detail before accepting such an inheritance. A fact that she concedes, but rejecting any infringement.

Sonia Rolland inherited the apartment, now seized, in 2003. A gift from Omar Bongo on which she had provided more details during an interview with investigators in January 2021, still according to The Parisian. After her reign as Miss France, Sonia Rolland, just in her twenties, met Edith Bongo, through whom she then met her husband, President Omar Bongo. After sympathizing, the first lady of Gabon announces to Sonia Rolland the imminent arrival of a gift for her, recorded by the call of a notary. An offer that she accepts without being suspicious and without knowing that the apartment, among other real estate on French soil including Parisian mansions, had been acquired fraudulently.

The indictment of Sonia Rolland follows that of 4 of Omar Bongo’s children, also accused of concealment of embezzlement of public funds, active and passive corruption and abuse of corporate assets after inheriting from their father. According to Maître Charles Morel, lawyer for Tess and Kahina’s mother, his client fell into the trap out of naivety, as anyone of that age would do: “My client was 22 years old, she was coming out of a period where she was projected into a universe of which she knew nothing. She explained in detail about the conditions for obtaining this gift that she did not request. She admits to having been naive, but disputes any violation. At no time did she know of the origin of the funds, nor of the financial package, she trusted the notary completely.“A confidence that she could well pay today.

She remains completely innocent of the facts of which she is accused until the closure of this file.

source site-110