EXECUTIVE FINDING

On 28 July 2021, France’s Court of Cassation rejected the final appeal of Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue, vice president of Equatorial Guinea and son of President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo.

The ruling made final his French conviction for money laundering connected to misappropriation of public funds.

The Paris Court of Appeal had imposed a three-year suspended prison sentence, a €30 million fine and confiscation of assets in France.

Transparency International France estimated the confiscated French assets at approximately €150 million.

The assets included the 42 avenue Foch mansion in Paris and luxury property seized during the investigation.

The French case was the most advanced branch of the wider 'biens mal acquis' — ill-gotten gains — litigation targeting assets accumulated in France by foreign political leaders and their entourages.

The legal significance was larger than one vice president.

France had moved from treating foreign kleptocratic wealth as a diplomatic inconvenience to treating it as a money-laundering problem.

The timing was equally important.

In July 2021, France also adopted a framework intended to return confiscated corruption assets for the benefit of populations in the countries from which the wealth had been taken.

That transformed confiscation from a domestic punishment into an international restitution question.

THE ASSET WAS IN PARIS. THE ALLEGED PUBLIC LOSS WAS IN EQUATORIAL GUINEA. THE MONEY-LAUNDERING CASE CONNECTED THEM.

The central Kleptik question is therefore:

WHEN A FOREIGN OFFICIAL’S LUXURY ASSETS SIT IN A WESTERN FINANCIAL CENTRE, WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS IT TO ASK WHETHER THE WEALTH COULD EVER HAVE COME FROM LEGITIMATE PUBLIC INCOME?

THE FINDING

Kleptocracy requires two systems.

The first extracts value from the state.

The second receives, stores, spends and legitimises that value elsewhere.

The Obiang case matters because it targeted the second system.

France did not prosecute an Equatoguinean budget decision.

It prosecuted the laundering of wealth in France.

PUBLIC OFFICE

↓

MISAPPROPRIATED / CORRUPTION-LINKED VALUE

↓

INTERMEDIARIES / COMPANIES

↓

FOREIGN BANKING AND LUXURY MARKETS

↓

PARIS REAL ESTATE + MOVABLE ASSETS

↓

MONEY-LAUNDERING PROSECUTION

↓

CONFISCATION

↓

RESTITUTION QUESTION

TEODORIN OBIANG

Teodorin Obiang is the son of Equatorial Guinea’s long-serving president and became vice president of the country.

Before that, he held ministerial positions including responsibility for agriculture and forestry.

His political status made him one of the highest-risk PEPs in Africa.

THE SALARY-TO-WEALTH GAP

U.S. authorities had earlier stated that Obiang’s official government salary was below US$100,000 while he accumulated assets worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

The exact legitimate-income profile is a factual question for each jurisdiction.

But extreme divergence between official income and asset accumulation is a classic source-of-wealth red flag.

THE FRENCH CONVICTION

The French proceedings concluded that funds connected to misappropriation of public assets were laundered through acquisitions and spending in France.

The Court of Cassation’s 28 July 2021 rejection ended the ordinary criminal appeal process.

FINALITY

A first-instance conviction can change.

An appeal can narrow findings.

A final Court of Cassation rejection changes evidentiary treatment.

Kleptik can describe the core laundering conviction as final as of the archive date.

THE THREE-YEAR SUSPENDED SENTENCE

The appellate sentence included three years’ imprisonment suspended.

The absence of immediate incarceration does not reduce the significance of the conviction.

The most consequential sanction may have been confiscation.

THE €30 MILLION FINE

The Paris Court of Appeal converted the earlier suspended fine into a firm €30 million fine.

That penalty remained in force after the cassation ruling.

THE €150 MILLION ASSET ESTIMATE

Transparency International France estimated the French assets subject to confiscation at approximately €150 million.

That figure should be treated as an estimated asset value, not as the amount of a single proven embezzlement transaction.

THE 42 AVENUE FOCH MANSION

The most visible asset was a mansion at 42 avenue Foch in Paris.

Its importance became legal as well as symbolic.

Equatorial Guinea asserted diplomatic status over the property during the dispute.

THE DIPLOMATIC-IMMUNITY BATTLE

Equatorial Guinea took the dispute to the International Court of Justice.

In December 2020, the ICJ ruled that the building had never acquired the status of diplomatic mission premises under the Vienna Convention.

That removed one of the major obstacles to French enforcement against the property.

DIPLOMATIC LABEL ≠ DIPLOMATIC STATUS

A state cannot necessarily convert private property into immune diplomatic premises simply by declaring it so after enforcement pressure begins.

The legal status depends on the applicable diplomatic framework and recognition.

THE PROPERTY AS A STORE OF VALUE

Luxury real estate performs several functions.

It preserves wealth.

It can appreciate.

It creates status.

It can be held through companies or other structures.

And it is difficult to move once authorities identify it.

REAL ESTATE IS LAUNDERING-FRIENDLY — AND RECOVERY-FRIENDLY

Property can integrate illicit proceeds into a respectable asset.

But title records and physical immobility also make it easier to freeze than cash that can cross borders instantly.

THE LUXURY-GOODS ECOSYSTEM

The wider investigations associated Obiang with luxury vehicles, art, collectibles and high-end spending.

Luxury goods can absorb enormous value without the recurring compliance architecture of a bank account.

Dealers therefore occupy an important gatekeeping role.

THE UNITED STATES TRACK

The U.S. Department of Justice pursued a separate civil-forfeiture case involving Obiang assets.

In 2014, he agreed to relinquish more than US$30 million in assets connected to that case.

The settlement included sale of a Malibu mansion, a Ferrari and Michael Jackson memorabilia.

THE US$26.6 MILLION RETURN

By 2021, the United States had arranged for US$26.6 million from the earlier settlement to be used for COVID-19 vaccines and medical needs in Equatorial Guinea.

That U.S. track illustrates the same policy question France faced: how can recovered wealth be returned without feeding the same systems that enabled corruption?

PARALLEL JURISDICTIONS

France prosecuted laundering.

The United States used civil asset forfeiture.

The ICJ dealt with diplomatic-status questions.

One kleptocracy case can therefore generate several legal systems operating simultaneously.

THE GATEKEEPER QUESTION

Large-scale foreign luxury spending requires professional infrastructure.

Banks.

lawyers.

estate agents.

company agents.

luxury dealers.

Each may see only part of the client’s wealth.

THE PEP QUESTION

The most basic control is recognition.

• Was the client a senior foreign public official?
• Was the source of wealth independently established?
• Was the transaction consistent with known lawful income?

SOURCE OF WEALTH

A bank transfer from a company account explains the immediate source of funds.

It does not necessarily explain the economic origin of the wealth.

That distinction is central to kleptocracy cases.

THE FAMILY-POWER RISK

Obiang’s status was not merely that of an individual official.

He was also the president’s son.

Dynastic political systems create enhanced risk because state power, family wealth and commercial access can overlap.

PUBLIC ASSET OR PRIVATE FORTUNE?

The core corruption inquiry asks whether wealth attributed to a political family was generated through legitimate private enterprise or extracted from public or state-controlled economic activity.

The French criminal findings resolved that question for the conduct underlying the laundering conviction.

OFFICIAL POSITION

↓

CONTROL / INFLUENCE OVER STATE RESOURCES

↓

PRIVATE ECONOMIC BENEFIT

↓

CROSS-BORDER SPENDING

↓

LUXURY ASSET

↓

SOURCE-OF-WEALTH DISCONNECT

↓

AML / KLEPTOCRACY ENFORCEMENT

THE BIENS MAL ACQUIS MODEL

The French 'ill-gotten gains' cases emerged from civil-society complaints concerning foreign rulers and their entourages.

The model is important because the predicate corruption may occur abroad while the laundering asset sits in France.

CIVIL SOCIETY AS CASE ORIGINATOR

Transparency International France and other NGOs played a major role in developing the litigation.

Their work demonstrates that asset recovery can begin with investigative complaints rather than government-to-government requests.

THE HOST-COUNTRY RESPONSIBILITY

If a financial centre welcomes unexplained political wealth, it becomes part of the corruption ecosystem.

The money may be stolen abroad.

The legitimacy can be manufactured at home.

THE WESTERN-ASSET PARADOX

Kleptocrats often prefer assets in jurisdictions with strong property rights.

The safer the legal system, the more attractive the asset.

That same legal system can later make confiscation effective.

THE RULE-OF-LAW REVERSAL

The investor seeks a Western court to protect ownership.

The state later uses the same court system to test whether the ownership was financed by criminal proceeds.

THE LUXURY-MARKET RED FLAG

A foreign minister buying a modest home is one risk profile.

A foreign official acquiring mansions, supercars and collectible assets at enormous scale is another.

Compliance should aggregate lifestyle spending rather than review each merchant separately.

AGGREGATED PEP RISK

One jeweller sees a watch.

One car dealer sees a vehicle.

One estate agent sees a house.

No single seller may see the full wealth picture.

Financial intelligence must aggregate.

THE COMPANY-VEHICLE PROBLEM

Legal entities can separate the PEP’s name from the asset.

That creates a beneficial-ownership question.

• Who ultimately controls the company?
• Who funded it?
• Who uses the asset?

BENEFICIAL USE

Legal ownership matters.

So does practical use.

A mansion used by a political figure may be economically attributable to that person even if title sits elsewhere, depending on the evidence.

THE BANK’S ROLE

Banks are often the only institutions able to see inflows, counterparties and international transfers.

But complex structures can fragment visibility across multiple institutions.

THE PRIVATE-BANKING RISK

High-net-worth banking is designed to manage complexity.

That makes source-of-wealth discipline especially important.

Sophistication should increase scrutiny, not replace it.

THE LAWYER’S ROLE

Lawyers can structure purchases, companies and disputes.

Professional representation is legitimate.

But transactional work can also place lawyers inside the gatekeeping perimeter.

THE ESTATE AGENT’S ROLE

High-end estate agents may be the first commercial contact for overseas political wealth.

PEP identification and source-of-funds checks should occur before completion, not after a scandal becomes public.

THE LUXURY DEALER’S ROLE

High-value dealers can convert cash or bank funds into portable prestige assets.

Anti-money-laundering frameworks increasingly recognise that risk.

THE DIPLOMATIC-IMMUNITY GAMBIT

The 42 avenue Foch dispute shows how asset recovery can collide with sovereignty.

A property associated with a foreign state may raise immunity questions even where prosecutors say it was privately acquired.

THE ICJ FILTER

The ICJ did not decide Obiang’s criminal guilt.

It decided the diplomatic-status dispute.

That procedural distinction must be preserved.

THE FRENCH APPEAL DISTINCTION

The Paris Court of Appeal narrowed aspects of the first-instance legal characterisation, including acquitting on one corruption-linked laundering head while maintaining the principal money-laundering conviction tied to misappropriation of public funds.

Kleptik therefore uses the final appellate/cassation status rather than oversimplifying the 2017 judgment.

THE RESTITUTION PROBLEM

Confiscating a Paris asset is easier than deciding what happens next.

If the money is returned directly to a government accused of systemic corruption, the recovery can fail its own purpose.

RETURN TO THE PEOPLE, NOT THE NETWORK

Asset restitution needs safeguards.

Transparency.

auditable projects.

civil-society participation.

independent monitoring.

The objective is to benefit the population harmed by corruption.

THE FRENCH 2021 POLICY SHIFT

In 2021, France adopted a legal framework intended to channel proceeds from confiscated foreign corruption assets toward populations in the country of origin.

The Obiang case became the obvious test case.

CONFISCATION ≠ RESTITUTION

Confiscation changes legal ownership.

Restitution decides how value reaches victims.

Those are separate phases.

ASSET RECOVERY IS GOVERNANCE

A bad restitution mechanism can recreate corruption.

The recovered asset therefore requires the same integrity controls as the original public money.

THE €150 MILLION DEVELOPMENT QUESTION

An asset pool of roughly €150 million can finance material public services in a small country.

That is why restitution becomes political.

• Who selects the projects?
• Who monitors delivery?
• Who prevents diversion?

THE MANSION-TO-HOSPITAL COMPARISON

Advocacy groups later compared the value of the Avenue Foch property to major public-health infrastructure.

The rhetorical point is powerful, but Kleptik should separate advocacy comparisons from court findings.

THE ECONOMIC-ORIGIN TEST

The right question is not whether the asset looks extravagant.

It is whether legitimate income, business revenue or disclosed wealth can explain it.

UNEXPLAINED WEALTH AS AN INVESTIGATIVE TRIGGER

A mismatch between salary and wealth is a red flag.

It is not itself a conviction.

The criminal case must still prove the laundering and predicate conduct required by law.

THE HOST-JURISDICTION BENEFIT

Foreign wealth also benefits host economies.

Estate agents earn commissions.

lawyers earn fees.

banks earn revenue.

dealers sell goods.

That creates an economic incentive not to ask difficult questions.

THE COMPLIANCE CONFLICT

The more lucrative the client, the stronger the institution’s commercial incentive to preserve the relationship.

That is exactly why PEP controls require senior approval and independent challenge.

THE REPUTATIONAL RISK

A country that becomes known as a safe haven for kleptocratic wealth pays a systemic reputational price.

Asset-recovery enforcement is therefore also a financial-centre integrity policy.

THE FAMILY SUCCESSION RISK

Where a president’s child holds high office and major wealth, political succession and wealth succession can become intertwined.

That does not prove corruption.

It raises the importance of disclosure and source-of-wealth testing.

THE NATURAL-RESOURCE CONTEXT

Equatorial Guinea’s public finances have historically depended heavily on oil and gas.

Resource-rich states can generate large public rents controlled by a small political system.

That structure creates classic kleptocracy risk when institutional checks are weak.

RESOURCE RENT + WEAK ACCOUNTABILITY

High resource revenue.

limited transparency.

concentrated political power.

international financial access.

That combination is one of the standard risk architectures for grand corruption.

THE ASSET-RECOVERY FEEDBACK LOOP

Successful confiscation changes incentives for future gatekeepers.

If property, bank balances and luxury goods can be lost years later, accepting unexplained PEP wealth becomes less commercially attractive.

THE DETERRENCE SIGNAL

The Court of Cassation’s final ruling sent a message beyond Equatorial Guinea.

Foreign office does not necessarily protect assets held in France.

The host jurisdiction can prosecute laundering even when the alleged underlying theft occurred abroad.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OBJECTION

Equatorial Guinea consistently contested French jurisdictional and property claims.

That objection should be reported because cross-border corruption enforcement inevitably raises sovereignty concerns.

FOREIGN PROSECUTION OF DOMESTIC CORRUPTION

The answer in law is jurisdiction-specific.

France was not claiming general authority over Equatorial Guinea.

It was asserting authority over money-laundering conduct and assets in France.

THE TERRITORIAL NEXUS

The mansion was in Paris.

The assets were in France.

The transactions touched French territory.

That created the enforcement nexus.

THE KLEPTOCRACY-GATEKEEPER MATRIX

THE LEGAL-STATUS MATRIX

CHRONOLOGY

2007

NGO complaints concerning 'biens mal acquis' begin targeting assets in France associated with several foreign ruling families.

2010

A French judicial investigation opens into suspected laundering of misappropriated foreign public funds.

2011–2012

French investigators search and seize luxury property connected to Teodorin Obiang, including movable assets associated with the Avenue Foch property.

2011

The United States separately files kleptocracy civil-forfeiture actions against Obiang-linked assets.

2014

Obiang reaches a U.S. settlement requiring relinquishment of more than US$30 million in assets.

27 October 2017

A Paris criminal court convicts Obiang in the French ill-gotten-gains case and orders confiscation of his French assets.

10 February 2020

The Paris Court of Appeal confirms the core money-laundering conviction, imposes a three-year suspended term, a firm €30 million fine and confiscation.

11 December 2020

The International Court of Justice rules that 42 avenue Foch never acquired diplomatic-mission-premises status.

July 2021

France adopts a legal framework for restitution of confiscated foreign corruption assets to populations in countries of origin.

28 July 2021

The French Court of Cassation rejects Obiang’s appeal, making the core conviction and confiscation final.

DOCUMENTARY RECORD

COUR DE CASSATION — 28 JULY 2021

France’s highest criminal court rejected Teodorin Obiang’s appeal against the Paris Court of Appeal judgment, leaving the money-laundering conviction, three-year suspended sentence, €30 million fine and confiscation in place.

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE — 11 DECEMBER 2020

The ICJ held that the 42 avenue Foch property had never acquired the status of diplomatic mission premises and that France had not breached the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL FRANCE — JULY 2021

Transparency France, a civil party in the proceedings, estimated the confiscated French assets at approximately €150 million and described the case as a landmark for restitution.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE — KLEPTOCRACY ASSET RECOVERY

The separate U.S. proceedings resulted in relinquishment of more than US$30 million in assets and, by 2021, arrangements to use US$26.6 million for vaccines and medical needs in Equatorial Guinea.

WHAT THE COURTS ESTABLISHED

The French criminal courts established money laundering linked to misappropriation of public funds.

The conviction became final after the Court of Cassation rejected the appeal.

The French courts ordered confiscation of assets in France.

The ICJ separately established that the Avenue Foch property did not enjoy diplomatic-premises status.

WHAT OBIANG AND EQUATORIAL GUINEA ARGUED

Obiang contested the French criminal case through appeal and cassation.

Equatorial Guinea challenged French actions involving the Avenue Foch property and asserted diplomatic protections.

Those arguments were litigated in national and international courts and did not prevent the final French confiscation as of the archive date.

WHAT THIS DOSSIER DOES NOT ESTABLISH

This dossier does not state that every asset ever owned by Teodorin Obiang was criminal property.

It does not state that every bank, lawyer, estate agent or luxury dealer involved knowingly participated in laundering.

It does not equate the estimated €150 million confiscated asset value with the amount of one specific theft.

It does not treat the U.S. civil-forfeiture settlement as a French criminal conviction.

It does not treat the ICJ diplomatic-property judgment as a criminal corruption judgment.

It does not incorporate later disputes over restitution or ownership after 28 July 2021.

RIGHT OF REPLY

Historical publication should reflect the procedural positions advanced by Obiang and Equatorial Guinea in the French and ICJ proceedings.

Any specific professional intermediary criticised beyond adjudicated facts should receive transaction-specific questions.

Any current claim about asset ownership, restitution or enforcement should be separately verified rather than inferred from the 2021 record.

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

1. THE FULL ASSET MAP

What was the complete beneficially owned French asset portfolio at the moment the conviction became final?

2. THE FUNDING PATH

Which specific accounts and companies funded each major French acquisition?

3. THE ORIGINAL WEALTH

What legitimate business income, if any, could explain portions of the asset base?

4. THE AVENUE FOCH PURCHASE

What was the precise financing history of 42 avenue Foch?

5. THE COMPANIES

Which legal entities held or financed the French luxury assets?

6. THE BANKS

Which institutions processed the largest flows and what PEP due diligence was performed?

7. THE PRIVATE BANKERS

Who managed the relationship and how was source of wealth documented?

8. THE LAW FIRMS

Which firms structured acquisitions or defended ownership positions, and what AML duties applied?

9. THE LUXURY DEALERS

Which dealers repeatedly sold high-value goods and how did they assess PEP risk?

10. THE U.S. OVERLAP

Which assets and payment structures overlapped between U.S. and French investigations?

11. THE SALARY GAP

What was Obiang’s complete lawful income during the accumulation period?

12. THE STATE-COMPANY LINKS

Which Equatoguinean public or state-linked entities generated funds that later entered the asset network?

13. RESTITUTION

How should France ensure returned assets benefit citizens rather than re-enter patronage networks?

14. CIVIL-SOCIETY OVERSIGHT

What role should Equatoguinean civil society play in project selection and monitoring?

15. THE €150 MILLION

What is the verified realised value of confiscated assets after sale costs and litigation?

16. MOVABLE ASSETS

What happened to vehicles, art, furniture and other seized luxury goods?

17. THE DIPLOMATIC CLAIM

Who decided to assert diplomatic status over Avenue Foch and when?

18. HOST-COUNTRY CONTROLS

Which French AML or luxury-market controls failed to identify the wealth earlier?

19. DETERRENCE

Did the final ruling change how French institutions treated foreign PEP wealth?

20. THE CENTRAL QUESTION

Can a financial centre credibly fight foreign corruption if it scrutinises the theft only after the kleptocrat has already converted the proceeds into homes, cars, art and banked wealth inside its own economy?

KLEPTIK INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENT

ASSESSMENT: ESTABLISHED — FINAL CONVICTION

On 28 July 2021, France’s Court of Cassation rejected Teodorin Obiang’s appeal, making the core French money-laundering conviction final.

ASSESSMENT: ESTABLISHED — SENTENCE

The final French sentence included a three-year suspended prison term and a €30 million fine.

ASSESSMENT: ESTABLISHED — CONFISCATION

French assets were ordered confiscated; Transparency International France estimated their total value at approximately €150 million.

ASSESSMENT: ESTABLISHED — ICJ JUDGMENT

The ICJ ruled in December 2020 that 42 avenue Foch had never acquired diplomatic mission-premises status.

ASSESSMENT: ESTABLISHED — PARALLEL U.S. RECOVERY

Separate U.S. proceedings resulted in relinquishment of more than US$30 million in assets and later arrangements for US$26.6 million to support health needs in Equatorial Guinea.

ASSESSMENT: HIGH CONFIDENCE

The case demonstrates that host-country AML enforcement is indispensable to fighting kleptocracy because the laundering and asset-storage stages often occur outside the country where public wealth is extracted.

ASSESSMENT: HIGH CONFIDENCE

Luxury real estate and high-value goods are not merely lifestyle evidence; they can be integration vehicles for politically exposed wealth.

ASSESSMENT: HIGH CONFIDENCE

Restitution is a distinct governance problem from confiscation and requires safeguards against re-diversion.

THE KLEPTIK VIEW

Kleptocracy does not end at the border.

The money must go somewhere.

A mansion.

A bank account.

A supercar.

A painting.

A collectible.

The official may control the state at home.

But the wealth often seeks safety abroad.

That creates the vulnerability.

The same rule of law that makes Paris attractive can make Paris dangerous.

Property rights protect legitimate wealth.

Confiscation law can attack criminal wealth.

The host country therefore becomes the second battlefield of corruption.

This is why the Obiang case matters.

France did not need to govern Equatorial Guinea.

It needed to govern what happened inside France.

• Who bought the mansion?
• Who paid?
• What was the source of wealth?
• Why did institutions accept the explanation?

Those questions are enough to turn foreign corruption into domestic AML enforcement.

KLEPTOCRACY EXTRACTS AT HOME.

MONEY LAUNDERING MAKES THE WEALTH SAFE ABROAD.

And asset recovery reverses that process.

The asset is found.

Frozen.

Confiscated.

Then the hardest question begins:

who should receive the value?

A recovered mansion is not justice until the public that lost the money receives a credible benefit.

FOLLOW THE PUBLIC MONEY OUT.

FOLLOW THE LUXURY ASSET IN.

THEN MAKE SURE RESTITUTION DOES NOT SEND IT BACK INTO THE SAME SYSTEM.

KLEPTIK METHODOLOGY

This dossier is dated 28 July 2021 and is intentionally fixed to the legal and evidentiary position existing on that date.

The principal sources are the French Court of Cassation ruling of 28 July 2021, the Paris appellate outcome it left in place, the International Court of Justice judgment of 11 December 2020, Transparency International France materials as civil party, and U.S. Department of Justice kleptocracy-asset-recovery records.

Kleptik distinguishes among final criminal conviction, confiscation, civil forfeiture, diplomatic-status litigation, estimated asset value and restitution.

FINAL CRIMINAL CONVICTION

A conviction no longer subject to ordinary French cassation review as of the archive date.

CONFISCATION

A criminal asset measure ordered by French courts.

CIVIL FORFEITURE / SETTLEMENT

Separate U.S. asset-recovery proceedings not equivalent to the French criminal conviction.

ICJ JUDGMENT

A ruling on diplomatic status and state obligations, not on Obiang’s criminal guilt.

ESTIMATED ASSET VALUE

An approximate valuation of property subject to confiscation, not the amount of a single predicate offence.

For professional-enabler analysis, mere participation in a property, banking or legal transaction is not evidence of knowing laundering.

For PEP analysis, wealth disparity is treated as an investigative trigger requiring independent source-of-wealth evidence.

For restitution, Kleptik distinguishes returning assets to a state from returning value for the benefit of the population.

Later events after 28 July 2021 are excluded from the evidentiary status of this dossier.

EVIDENTIARY LABELS

ESTABLISHED — FINAL CONVICTION

Conduct established in the French criminal proceedings and final after cassation review.

ESTABLISHED — SENTENCE

Penalty remaining in force after the final appeal.

ESTABLISHED — CONFISCATION

Asset measure ordered and upheld in the French criminal proceedings.

ESTABLISHED — ICJ JUDGMENT

Finding of the International Court of Justice on diplomatic-premises status.

CIVIL ASSET-RECOVERY RECORD

Fact established or alleged in separate civil-forfeiture proceedings.

PEP SOURCE-OF-WEALTH INDICATOR

Mismatch or fact relevant to enhanced scrutiny; not guilt by itself.

PROFESSIONAL-GATEKEEPER INDICATOR

Role of bank, lawyer, dealer or intermediary requiring evidence-specific review.

KLEPTIK VERIFIED

Fact independently corroborated through primary judicial or official records.

KLEPTIK ASSESSMENT

Analytical conclusion derived from identified evidence.

INVESTIGATIVE LEAD

Matter requiring further financial, corporate, asset or restitution verification.

DOCUMENT STATUS

KLTK-2021-034

Subject: Teodorin Obiang / Equatorial Guinea / France / Ill-Gotten Gains / Money Laundering / Asset Confiscation

Archive date: 28 July 2021

Status at archive date: French money-laundering conviction final; three-year suspended sentence and €30 million fine in force; French asset confiscation final

Historical treatment: Fixed to report date

© KLEPTIK — Investigations into Power, Money and the Systems Designed to Hide Both