[ad_1]
Ghosn visited occupied Palestine in 2008 and met Shimon Peres (Getty)
On Tuesday, the Lebanese Judicial Power issued a decision to stop the prosecution of the former president of the Renault Nissan Mitsubishi alliance, Carlos Ghosn, for the crime of visiting Israel, dealing with the enemy and establishing business relations with him, following information provided by the lawyers Hassan Bazzi, Gad Tohme and Ali Abbas, in early January. Last January.
Lawyer Jad Tohme points out, in his speech to Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, that the Lebanese Prosecutor’s Office “decided to preserve the news and not to prosecute Ghosn for the crimes attributed to him, due to the lapse of the ten-year period (es say, ten years), after the alleged perpetration of the crime, and this pretext was said Whispering in the past, and I explicitly left today, noting that we also presented an additional memorandum at that time to the Public Prosecutor’s Office for Discrimination, in reference to the honor of Ghosn in 2018 by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in an attempt to say that something happened in the aforementioned year requires more scrutiny, For his violation of the enemy boycott law, and the need not to close deals with him, which is subject to the Lebanese penal code and does not apply after ten years, however, the prosecution kept the request attached to the news.
An additional memorandum submitted at the time to the Cassation Prosecutor’s Office, concerns Ghosn’s honor in 2018 by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Tohme added: “We presented the news in January 2020, and we put the information that we have in the custody of the Lebanese judiciary, to make the appropriate decision, and we all trust her, in a step that is not intended to attack Ghosn personally, but is part of our continuous work at the level of anti-corruption archives. And the waste of public money, dealing with the enemy and national affairs “, noting that” the passage of time, even if it is the correct agreement With the provisions of the law, the Lebanese judiciary, with its ability to correspond with international organizations and international Interpol, can ensure during the last ten years, that is. From 2010 to 2020, it is verified that Carlos Ghosn did not enter into enemy territory, did not sign economic agreements with him, and did not violate the boycott of Israel’s law.
On Ghosn’s entry into Israel as a French citizen, not a Lebanese, Tohme states that “Ghosn has not renounced his Lebanese nationality, and there is a personal authority for the Lebanese judiciary to prosecute Lebanese who violated the penal code, and there is knows that the judiciary in Lebanon has dealt with the issue of the (Red Notice) issued On the basis of Interpol International’s authority with respect to Ghosn, who is a Lebanese citizen, and did not implement it under the pretext of a personal authority that allows it to hold him accountable Consequently, the Lebanese judiciary must decide whether to deal with Ghosn as Lebanese or as a foreigner.
The Lebanese businessman, at a press conference held in Beirut on January 8, 2020, after his escape from Japan, at the end of December 2019, justified his visit to Israel in 2008, and his meeting with former Israeli President Shimon Peres , and other officials and businessmen, two years later. It was only after the outbreak of the war in July 2006, between Lebanon and the enemy, that “he came in his capacity as French, and as a representative of Renault, that he signed an agreement with an Israeli company that manufactures electric cars,” claiming that “He was greatly affected when he learned of the reaction of a large number of Lebanese and their resentment at this step.” .
The circumstances of Ghosn’s departure from Japan and arrival in Beirut are still unknown, in terms of his escape route. Faced with the filtration of many scenarios, with different stories, the nicknamed “the emperor of the automotive industry” preferred not to reveal the mystery of the operation, so that “the people who helped him leave Japanese lands would not be involved, since the Judicial Power directs him various charges, including deceiving the country’s tax authorities and treason. ” Trust, which led to his arrest by Japanese authorities in 2018, and other charges.
Raising the Lebanese judiciary’s decision first in French agencies, before local media, raises many questions
In the context, a source familiar with the file stopped, speaking with Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, when the decision of the Lebanese judiciary was first raised in French agencies, before the local media, raising many questions about whether interventions were carried out at the present time, with the aim of saving a man of nationality. French, in the framework of the settlements and the initiative of France towards Lebanon, although it is also useful to focus on the media in following up on the decision of the Prosecutor’s Office on the “Interpol” memorandum, especially since the Ghosn file it has become a topic of public opinion, and it is necessary to know how he fled and moved from Japan to Turkey. Before arriving in Beirut, every decision must be put in the spotlight, to be followed to the end. “
The question marks arise from many examples and experiences in Lebanon, the latest of which is the Lebanese Military Judiciary, specifically the Military Court, which last March cleared agent Amer Al-Fakhoury of the charge of dealing with Israel. , attempting to kill prisoners inside the Khiam prison and abduct and torture others, during the Israeli occupation of the south. Lebanon before the withdrawal in 2000, for the same reason, which is the passage of time on the crimes attributed to it.
In this context, lawyer Tohme says: “The decision of the military court at that time led to Fakhoury’s expulsion from Lebanon and the resignation of its president, Judge Hussein Abdullah, which means that something bad happened in the way he drove. the file that led the judge to resign; but in any case, we have confidence in the Lebanese judiciary. And that it will not be passive or close deals at the expense of the application of the law, and that the trial remains in the first and last place for people in each case that it becomes a matter of public opinion. “
[ad_2]
