La première fortune de France est de nouveau rattrapée par le fisc. Bernard Arnault, patron du géant mondial du luxe LVMH, s’est vu infliger un redressement fiscal d’environ 22,5 millions d’euros par la Cour administrative d’appel de Paris, selon un arrêt daté du 2 juillet. La décision vise à remettre à la charge de Bernard Arnault et de son épouse plusieurs millions d’euros d’impôts et de contributions, après des années de bataille contentieuse autour de la structure capitalistique du groupe.

Dans le détail, le couple Arnault doit s’acquitter de 12,96 millions d’euros de « cotisations supplémentaires » au titre de l’impôt sur le revenu et des contributions sociales pour l’année 2010, assorties de majorations et d’intérêts de retard. S’y ajoutent 9,5 millions d’euros au titre de l’impôt de solidarité sur la fortune pour les années 2012 à 2015, montants qui sont « remis à la charge » du couple, selon la décision consultée. Ce jugement en appel infirme le verdict de première instance qui avait, en décembre 2020, accordé au couple Arnault la décharge de ces impositions et la restitution de l’ISF sur la période concernée.

Au cœur du dossier, figure « l’actionnariat complexe » de LVMH, selon le média en ligne l’Informé, à l’origine de la révélation de la décision administrative. La famille Arnault ne détient pas directement des actions du groupe de luxe, mais via une cascade de holdings familiales, désormais pointées du doigt par l’administration fiscale. Ce montage de sociétés, utilisé pour détenir et organiser le contrôle du numéro un mondial du luxe, a servi de base aux redressements opérés par Bercy et contestés par les contribuables concernés.

La procédure s’inscrit dans une saga judiciaire à tiroirs. Après la décision favorable du tribunal administratif de Paris en 2020, le ministre de l’Économie de l’époque, Bruno Le Maire, est intervenu pour demander à la Cour administrative d’appel d’annuler ce jugement, en mars 2021 puis en novembre 2023. La Cour avait dans un premier temps rejeté la demande ministérielle, avant que le Conseil d’État n’annule cette décision et ne renvoie l’affaire devant la cour d’appel. Cette dernière a finalement durci sa position en confirmant le redressement. Un porte-parole de Bernard Arnault a déjà annoncé qu’un nouveau recours serait formé devant le Conseil d’État, prolongeant un peu plus une confrontation suivie de près dans le monde économique et politique.

Hong Kong’s national security police have arrested the operators of Hunter Bookstore, one of the city’s best-known independent bookshops, in a move that underscores rising pressure on small publishers and retailers carrying titles deemed politically sensitive by authorities. Police said they detained a 33‑year‑old woman and a 32‑year‑old man on June 24 on suspicion of “acts with seditious intention” and handling property believed to represent the proceeds of an indictable offence. Local media identified one of those arrested as former district councillor and Hunter Bookstore founder Winnie Ho, though police did not name the suspects in their official statement.

Officers from the National Security Department searched the Hunter Bookstore premises in Sham Shui Po on Wednesday evening, according to police and local media accounts. More than a dozen officers were reported to have entered the shop, pulling down its metal shutters and removing stickers from the windows, while checking the identities of customers and passers-by. Police said they seized a batch of items, books and documents they described as having “seditious intention,” alleging that materials on display or for sale incited hatred against the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government, the judiciary and law‑enforcement agencies, in breach of Article 24 of the city’s Safeguarding National Security Ordinance.

Authorities also said the two suspects were believed to have received multiple remittances from foreign political organisations, and indicated they are investigating potential violations of Hong Kong’s Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance. Convictions for acts with seditious intent can carry sentences of up to seven years in prison, while handling property believed to be derived from an indictable offence can draw terms of up to 14 years. Local reports cited the presence of a biography of jailed media tycoon Jimmy Lai and works by political cartoonist Zunzi among the titles removed by police; similar books were previously described by pro‑Beijing outlets as “soft resistance” publications when criticising so‑called “yellow” bookstores that supported the 2019 protest movement.

The raid on Hunter Bookstore comes three months after national security officers searched another independent outlet, Yat-Chuen Bookhouse, and arrested its operator and three staff members over the display and sale of the same Jimmy Lai biography. All four were later granted bail, but the case sent a chill through Hong Kong’s small ecosystem of independent booksellers, many of which stock social and political titles alongside general literature. Ho has previously said that government departments carried out dozens of inspections and other actions targeting Hunter Bookstore over several years, even before the latest operation, as authorities and pro‑government media stepped up scrutiny of shops perceived to hold pro‑democracy views.

Ho, a former journalist and member of the now‑disbanded Civic Party, opened Hunter Bookstore after resigning her Sha Tin District Council seat and withdrawing from frontline politics in 2021. She has described the shop’s name, drawn from the Japanese manga “Hunter × Hunter,” as a statement against passivity, and has publicly argued that books should remain “open” and “free” unless and until explicitly banned. In interviews, she acknowledged a climate of fear among publishers and readers but said she sought to maintain a space for discussion within the narrowing bounds of Hong Kong’s legal environment. The latest arrests mark a further escalation in the city’s approach to independent bookshops, reinforcing a message that even small‑scale retail operations risk national‑security scrutiny over the choice of titles they carry and the sources of their funding.