Unfit housing in Marseille: prison sentence for an investor at the head of a "real estate empire"

David Bertin, 42, owner of approximately 25 apartments generating 150.000 euros in annual rental income, appeared in court on May 4 for a dozen offenses.

Through seasonal rental platforms, he had continued to rent two apartments in a building in the center of Marseille which, in June 2019, was subject to a serious and imminent danger order and a ban on occupancy.

Placed in pre-trial detention for nearly four months in November 2019, David Bertin had put an apartment back on the market, equipped with supports and subject to a prohibition on living there, a few months after his release from prison, collecting a rent of 450 euros from a foreigner in irregular stay.

His "real estate empire," in the words of the investigating judge, valued at more than 1,8 million euros, consisted of small apartments acquired in dilapidated buildings which he renovated, often after dividing the spaces.

He had also obtained €243.000 in subsidies from the National Housing Agency (Anah) for the renovation of a dilapidated building in the Noailles district in central Marseille, in exchange for the obligation to rent the apartments at social housing rates. Instead, he listed these apartments on tourist rental platforms. He was ordered to repay these subsidies.

Misuse of company assets, undeclared work for the eight cleaning ladies and multi-skilled workers he employed... David Bertin is also convicted of defrauding banks by obtaining nine real estate loans on the basis of false files.

Since the defendant has already served time in pretrial detention, the remaining custodial sentence will be served under house arrest with electronic monitoring, presiding judge Lola Vandermaesen stated on Tuesday. The judges also imposed a fine of €200.000, of which €100.000 is suspended, a seven-year ban on acquiring real estate for rental purposes, and a five-year ban on managing a company.

In its ruling, the court observed that David Bertin "seems to have at least a minimal awareness of the seriousness of his actions but tends to see himself as a victim rather than a perpetrator." The judges questioned "his ability to respect the criminal law because he prioritizes financial gain over respect for human dignity."