Five years' suspended prison sentence sought against Olivier Bouygues for illegal hunting in Sologne
The Orleans court has sought five years' suspended prison and €750,000 in fines against billionaire Olivier Bouygues for the destruction of protected species.
Animal remains discovered on Fontenaille estate: Bouygues faces five years' suspended sentence
The Orleans criminal court sought on Tuesday a sentence of five years' suspended imprisonment against billionaire Olivier Bouygues, prosecuted for organised destruction of protected bird species on his hunting estate in Sologne. According to sudouest.fr, prosecutor Emmanuelle Bochenek-Puren also demanded a fine of €750,000 — the legal maximum — as well as a ban from engaging in any hunting-related activity for five years.
The magistrate described "prohibited" and "barbaric" methods, denouncing an "organisation that has persisted" over the years, directed by "the same owner". The reason for the destructions is, according to her, "known, acknowledged by some: to preserve the organised hunting parties held regularly by removing predators of small game". The "damage to biodiversity" was described as "major".
Mass grave discovered following anonymous tip-off
At the origin of the case, an anonymous tip-off led investigators from the French Biodiversity Office (OFB) to the Fontenaille estate, a 650-hectare property located at La Ferté-Saint-Aubin, in Loiret. They discovered "animal corpses in advanced decomposition". Photographs of a mass grave, projected during the hearing, showed several carcases lying in blood: kestrels, great egrets, harriers, common buzzards and great cormorants were among the victims. Cats were also killed.
Investigators also seized weapons, an excavator and around a hundred jaw traps — illegal since 1995 — as well as documents listing the species to be eliminated and recording destructions carried out over several years. Bounties of around one hundred euros per animal killed were paid to those carrying out the killings. The estate's manager stated that Olivier Bouygues "did not want it to be made public".
Bouygues denies any responsibility
Aged 75, Olivier Bouygues contested any direct involvement in the facts, claiming from the witness stand that he was "surprised" to learn of the opening of an investigation. "I have other fish to fry than managing the estate's affairs on a daily basis," he declared. He also stated that he had "never seen" the mass grave, whilst acknowledging knowledge of its existence, preferring to refer to it as an "ecological pit".
His lawyer, Éric Grassin, judged the demands "excessive". The five other defendants — the manager and gamekeepers of the estate — also rejected any responsibility of their employer, as well as the organised criminal conspiracy charge retained by the prosecution. "They protect each other," the prosecutor responded.
Sentences sought for co-defendants
For the five co-defendants, sentences of between one and four years' suspended imprisonment were sought, accompanied by fines ranging from €5,000 to €20,000 and temporary bans on hunting permits. The manager cited "ancestral practices" in Sologne, describing not destructions but a "regulation of species that threaten our game or our fish". He further acknowledged having disposed of certain hunting records on the morning of the search, citing "panic".
One of the defendants explained that the elimination of animals deemed "harmful" to the multiplication of game was a practice "rooted" in Sologne, France's second-largest forest area and a hunting ground prized by the wealthy elite.
Around fifteen civil-claimant associations
Around fifteen environmental protection associations joined as civil claimants in this case, alongside the Stéphane Lamart association and the Loiret departmental hunters' federation. The latter denounced "reputational damage to hunting". Patrice Grillon, counsel for the Stéphane Lamart association, criticised a collective narrative that "exculpates the boss".
The associations demanded several tens of thousands of euros in compensation for ecological damage and moral injury. The ruling has not yet been delivered.
Source: Google News LU FR