While criminal charges against him in New York have been dropped, Dominique Strauss-Kahn will still face legal problems at home, according to the lawyer for the woman who has accused him of attempted rape.

"/> While criminal charges against him in New York have been dropped, Dominique Strauss-Kahn will still face legal problems at home, according to the lawyer for the woman who has accused him of attempted rape.

" />
SHARE
COPY LINK

DOMINIQUE STRAUSS-KAHN

DSK affair in France ‘just beginning’: Banon lawyer

While criminal charges against him in New York have been dropped, Dominique Strauss-Kahn will still face legal problems at home, according to the lawyer for the woman who has accused him of attempted rape.

David Koubbi, who is acting for the writer Tristane Banon, spoke on Tuesday to newspaper 20 Minutes and said his client is determined to bring him to justice.

He claimed to be “exasperated” by rumours earlier this week that the French charges against him would be dismissed. 

“The prosecutor has denied this. The investigation is continuing,” he said. “The DSK affair in France is only just beginning.”

Commenting on Strauss Kahn’s liberation in New York, the lawyer complained of “crass indecency” on the part of the former IMF chief’s friends in France. He said they were engaged in a display of “self-congratulation.”

“I regret this outcome. I regret it for Nafissatou Diallo because I believed her,” he said.

Tristane Banon alleges that the former IMF chief sexually assaulted her in 2003, describing him as a “rutting chimpanzee.” Her story was given a further twist when it emerged her mother, Anne Mansouret, had herself had a brief sexual liaison with Strauss-Kahn.

On Tuesday, Mansouret took to the airwaves to express her indignation about Strauss-Kahn’s release and the reaction of many Socialist officials.

“I’m angry morning, noon and night,” she said on BFMTV. “There is no reason to consider Mr Strauss-Kahn as innocent. What repulses me is the reaction of Socialist MPs. They are all repeating that Dominique Strauss-Kahn is innocent when that’s not the case.”

Koubbi said his client was disappointed about what had happened to Diallo but she was not discouraged.

“She’s in a combative mood. She is not prepared to let this drop,” he said. “Tristane Banon wants justice to be done.”

 

twitter.com/matthew_warren

Member comments

Log in here to leave a comment.
Become a Member to leave a comment.

ECONOMY

World unprepared for next financial crisis: ex-IMF chief Strauss-Kahn

The world is less well equipped to manage a major financial crisis today than it was a decade ago, according to Dominique Strauss-Kahn, a former chief of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

World unprepared for next financial crisis: ex-IMF chief Strauss-Kahn
Former French Economy Minister and former managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Dominique Strauss-Kahn , poses during a photo session in Paris on Thursday. Photo: JOEL SAGET / AFP
In an interview with AFP, the now-disgraced Strauss-Kahn — who ran the fund at the height of the 2008 financial meltdown — also said rising populism across the world is a direct result of the crisis. 
 
Strauss-Kahn resigned as head of the IMF in 2011 after being accused of attempted rape in New York, although the charges were later dropped. He settled a subsequent civil suit, reportedly with more than $1.5 million.
 
Q: When did you become aware that a big crisis was brewing?
 
A: When I joined the IMF on Nov 1, 2007, it became clear quite quickly that things were not going well. That is why in January 2008, in Davos, I made a statement that made a bit of noise, asking for a global stimulus package worth two percent of each country's GDP. In April 2008, during the IMF's spring meetings, we released the figure of $1,000 billion that banks needed for their recapitalisation.
 
Q: Did the Bush administration grasp the danger of Lehman Brothers going bankrupt?
 
A: No, and that is why Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson decided not to save Lehman, because he wanted to make an example of it in the name of moral hazard. Like everybody else, he considerably underestimated the consequences. Allowing Lehman to go under was a serious mistake. Especially because only a week later they were forced to save the insurer AIG, which was much bigger.
 
Q: Ten years on, are we better equipped to deal with a crisis of such a magnitude?
 
A: No. We have made some progress, particularly in the area of banks' capital adequacy ratios. But that is not nearly enough. Imagine Deutsche Bank suddenly finding itself in difficulty. The eight percent of capital it has at its disposal are not going to be enough to solve the problem. The truth is that we are less well prepared now. Regulations are insufficient.
 
Q: How so?
 
A: After 2012-2013 we stopped talking about the need to regulate the economy, for example concerning the size of banks, or concerning rating agencies. We backtracked, which is why I am pessimistic about our preparedness. We have a non-thinking attitude towards globalisation and that does not yield positive results.
 
Q: Do we still have international coordination?
 
A: Coordination is mostly gone. Nobody plays that role anymore. Not the IMF and not the EU, and the United States president's policies are not helping. As a result, the mechanism that was created at the G20, which was very helpful because it involved emerging countries, has fallen apart. Ten years ago, governments accepted leaving that role to the IMF. I'm not sure it is able to play it today, but the future will tell.
 
Q: Do you believe that Donald Trump's election is a consequence of the crisis?
 
A: I believe so. I'm not saying that there was a single reason for Trump's election, but today's political situation is not unconnected to the crisis we lived through, both in the US with Trump and in Europe.
 
Q: Connected how?
 
A: One of the consequences of the crisis has been completely underestimated, in my opinion: the populism that is appearing everywhere is the direct outcome of the crisis and of the way that it was handled after 2011/2012, by favouring solutions that were going to increase inequalities.
 
Quantitative easing (by which central banks inject liquidity into the banking system) was useful and welcome. But it is a policy that is basically designed to bail out the financial system, and therefore serves the richest people on the planet.
 
When there's a fire, firemen intervene and there is water everywhere. But then you need to mop up, which we didn't do. And because this water flowed into the pockets of some, and not of everyone, there was a surge in inequality.
 
By AFP's Antonio Rodriguez