L'affaire Até Chuet, une procédure bancale

Overview

The video explains the French criminal process behind the “Até Chuet / Atéchouet” case and argues why the legal outcome may be uncertain—especially for one key charge.

Who Atéchouet is and what he’s accused of

• Pierre Henri Schouet, a former French Naval Aviation Rafale pilot, who uses the nickname “Atéchouet.”
• While still in service, he is reportedly said to have made two paid trips to China (in 2018 and 2019) to lecture Chinese officers.
• The French Ministry of Defense accuses him of:
  • not informing his superiors, and
  • revealing French defense secrets to the Chinese army.

Why the case entered custody after a year

The narrator counters the idea that “nothing happened” simply because nothing was public.

He explains that, in France, the early stage of the penal process is a:

• Preliminary investigation (which often lasts months, and can extend up to two years) During this phase, police gather evidence such as:

  • phone data,
  • location data,
  • searches,
  • witness statements.

Custody is described as arriving later—treated as a “final act” of that preliminary phase—so the time elapsed does not necessarily indicate lack of progress.

What happens procedurally next

The investigation is described as being handled by France’s internal security intelligence services (DGSI) with a judicial investigations unit.

After preliminary steps, the prosecutor may:

• dismiss the case,
• prosecute directly, or
• refer it to an investigating judge.

In this case, the video states the prosecutor referred it to an investigating judge, who must gather both:

• evidence supporting the charges (inculpatory), and
• evidence that could exonerate (exculpatory).

Offenses identified by the prosecutor

The video states that four offenses are identified, including:

• intelligence/relations with a foreign power,
• collection of information likely to harm France’s fundamental interests,
• delivery of information to a foreign power,
• disclosure of national defense secrets.

A tax-related angle is mentioned, but the video says it was not taken up by the prosecutor.

Could he face trial before a special assize court?

If the matter qualifies as a crime, it could go to the assize court.

The video highlights that certain national-security-related crimes may be tried in:

• closed hearings (public excluded), and
• procedures intended to prevent sensitive information from being disclosed.

Why convictions may be difficult (rare case-law)

The narrator argues that prosecutions connected to espionage are relatively uncommon, meaning:

• judges may have less established case-law to rely on,

so outcomes may be harder to predict than in categories of crime that occur more frequently.

Key legal uncertainty: “intelligence/collusion with the enemy”

The video’s central argument is that the most problematic charge is “collusion with a foreign power/enemy,” because:

• the penal code wording (as described) is broad—e.g., “maintaining relations with a foreign power,”
• the narrator suggests the definition may be vulnerable to a constitutional challenge, since criminal law must apply strict, precise definitions to prevent arbitrary interpretation,
• this could enable the defense to pursue constitutional review through a QPC (priority question of constitutionality),
  • potentially leading to annulment of the incrimination,
  • and therefore making conviction much less likely if that charge collapses.

Responses from the accused (and how evidence might be evaluated)

Delivery/disclosure offenses

Atéchouet allegedly claims that what he taught was based on open sources.

The video explains the legal logic:

• if the information was publicly accessible, the offense may not be established;
• if it was not public, prosecution becomes more plausible.

For alleged national defense secrets, the same threshold issue is whether the information was actually covered by French secrecy.

Harassment allegation

The video also notes that Atéchouet says he and relatives were harassed.

It reiterates that harassment is illegal and can itself lead to convictions.

Overall conclusion

• The case is portrayed as ongoing rather than settled.
• Several charges may depend on distinctions such as open-source vs secret information.
• The “collusion with the enemy/foreign power” count is presented as legally fragile due to precision/constitutionality concerns, with a possibility it could be overturned via QPC.

Presenter or contributor

• Sébastien (narrator/presenter)