Defence at Contrecoeur trial blames ‘media storm’ for probe
There may have been an “accumulation of irregularities,” but there was no fraud in the sale of the cityowned Faubourg Contrecoeur, a lawyer representing Frank Zampino, the former No. 2 politician at Montreal city hall, said in closing arguments at his trial on Friday.
In fact, Zampino’s lawyer, Isabel Schurman, and Pierre L’Écuyer, who is defending co-accused business man Paolo Ca tania, maintained in their final arguments that the investigation by Quebec’s anti-corruption squad into the 2007 Contrecoeur land deal was prompted by a “media storm” over the sale price that started with news articles in late 2008.
“A journalist wrote a story about Mr. Zampino and UPAC took that story and tried to prove it true,” Schurman said in describing the defence’s theory to the court. “However, it isn’t true,” she said.
There is also no evidence of personal gain by Zampino in the matter, Schurman argued.
Zampino, Ca tania and four formertop managers of Ca tania’ s construction firm, Construction Frank Catania et Associés Inc., were arrested in 2012 in connection with the sale of the city-owned land known as Faubourg Contrecoeur to the firm at a discounted price.
The trial before Court of Quebec Judge Yvan Poulin, which began in February 2016, heard final arguments from the defence this week.
The prosecution is to finish its final arguments on Tuesday.
The city’s real-estate agency, Société d’habitation et de développement de Montréal (SHDM), discounted $14.7 million for decontamination and other costs from the $19.1-million winning bid submitted by Construction Frank Catania et Associés. The firm wound up paying $4.4 million to purchase the land in the east end of Montreal to build a housing project valued at $300 million.
The prosecution tried to show at the trial that among other things, Construction Frank Catania et Associés was included in private discussions with the SHDM’s consultants to prepare studies and estimates for developing the Cont re co eur site before a call for proposals was launched.
That gave the company informationthat its competitors didn’ t have when the bidding process began, the prosecution says.
However, in their final arguments, Schurman and L’Écuyer argued that the prosecution’s case rests on circumstantial evidence that doesn’t prove criminal acts were committed. They also called into question the credibility of two key prosecution witnesses.
L’Écuyer argued that Catania didn’ t know that his firm had information that his firm’s competitors didn’ t have during the bidding process. He also noted that the SHDM sought out the Catania firm’s input on the estimates for the Cont re co eur development plan before the call for proposals.
A lawyer for co-accused André Fortin, who was vice-president of finance and a shareholder in Construction Frank Catania et Associés, focused his final arguments on refuting the prosecution’s position that the firm benefitted from financial favours.
The Catania firm and the SHDM engaged in business negotiations, Fortin’s lawyer, Pierre Morneau, argued.
“It was negotiation between responsible adults,” Morneau said.
He also said the city had a policy of helping to pay for infrastructure costs in residential projects to encourage development.
Martin D’Aoust, an executive and shareholder in the Catania firm who is also accused, had legitimate business exchanges with his counterpart at the SHDM, his lawyer, Louis Gélinas argued.
The lawyer for another co-accused, Pascal Pat rice, who was environmental director for the Ca tania firm, argued the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the de contamination cost was exaggerated.
The last of the six co-accused, Pasquale Fedele, a former director of construction for the Catania firm who is representing himself at the trial, submitted written final arguments to Poulin.
Schurman, meanwhile, downplayed the significance of trips taken together by Zampino and Catania and their spouses around the time of the Contrecoeur land deal. The trips weren’t connected to the Contrecoeur sale, she said.
Schurman also argued that Zampino paid his way and that Catania only reserved hotel rooms for the couples using his credit card for one of the trips.
The norms at the time of the Contrecoeur sale, and before the Charbonneau commission hearings, didn’t discourage politicians from accepting tickets to events and bottles of wine from entrepreneurs, Schurman said.
“Socializing is not criminal,” Schurman said, “and even taking trips isn’t criminal.”