
‘Grandpa robbers' found guilty of robbing Kim Kardashian at gunpoint
Eight people, mostly pensioners, have been found guilty of crimes connected to the gunpoint robbery of £7.5 million worth of jewellery from Kim Kardashian, the billionaire American socialite.
The 44-year-old reality television star was tied up and held at gunpoint in a five-hour ordeal at a hotel in October 2016 during Paris Fashion Week by a gang dubbed 'the grandpa robbers'.
They dumped Kardashian in her hotel bathroom and made off by bicycle and on foot with the jewels, including a £3.7 million ring from her then-husband, rapper Kanye West.
The group of nine men and one woman, with an average age of 70, were accused of armed robbery, kidnapping and gang association.
Eight of the accused were convicted while two of the defendants, both considered informants who allegedly passed on Kardashian's movements to the robbers, were acquitted.
Due to time already served in pretrial detention, none of those found guilty will go to prison.
David De Pas, the chief judge, told the defendants: 'The sentences are quite lenient; I understand that you understand that you have caused harm.
'The state of health of the main protagonists ethically prohibits incarcerating anyone. It would have been unjust to take you to prison this evening.'
Kardashian, in a statement following the guilty verdicts, said: 'The crime was the most terrifying experience of my life, leaving a lasting impact on me and my family.
'While I'll never forget what happened, I believe in the power of growth and accountability and pray for healing for all.
'I remain committed to advocating for justice, and promoting a fair legal system.'
Aomar Ait Khedache, 68, known as 'Old Omar' and who is completely blind and deaf, had admitted to tying up Kardashian but denied being the mastermind of the plot.
In a statement read out on his behalf by his lawyer to the packed courtroom, he begged for forgiveness.
'I ask for forgiveness. I can't find the words. I am very sorry,' it read.
'I offer a thousand apologies,' he scribbled on a piece of paper during the proceedings.
He was sentenced to eight years in prison, five of which were suspended, and fined €5,000.
Anne-Dominique Merville, the prosecutor general, had demanded that Khedache, who has multiple convictions for drug-running and robbery, should spend the next 10 years in prison.
She said he was 'now of a certain age and showed no risk of reoffending' but should 'pay for his crimes'.
His son, Harminy Aït Khedache, who was the getaway driver but maintained he had no idea that a robbery was taking place, was sentenced to five years in prison, four of which were suspended.
Yunice Abbas, who admitted his participation and wrote a book in 2021 called I Kidnapped Kim Kardashian, which recounted his role in the plot, was sentenced to seven years in prison, five of which were suspended.
Didier Dubreucq, nicknamed Didier 'Blue Eyes', who was identified as one of the two criminals who entered Kardashian's bedroom and stole her jewellery, was sentenced to seven years in prison, five of which were suspended.
Marc-Alexandre Boyer, the youngest of the group, now aged 35, was suspected of having kept lookout in the hotel lobby with Abbas.
Marc Boyer, his father, accused only of possessing a weapon, was fined €5,000.
Christiane Glotin, 80, who acted as the 'criminal secretary', was given a four-year suspended sentence.
François Delaporte, accused of providing and possessing false documents, was handed a three-year suspended prison sentence.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
I've been branded a cheat and a prostitute by evil trolls online & my boyfriend is starting to believe them
1 DEAR DEIDRE: EVER since I started dating this great guy at work, someone has been waging a nasty campaign against me. At first it was lies all over his socials, and mine, from an anonymous account, saying I was cheating on him. I managed to convince him that none of the accusations were true but I'm worried that their latest stunt is getting to him. We've been together for six months but as soon as he posted pictures of both of us together, the lies started. Thankfully the first lie they told was easy to disprove. When we went public, I posted a lovely photo of the two of us hugging and tagged him in. Within the hour someone commented from an anonymous account 'hang on? I didn't realise you were in a relationship otherwise I would never have stayed the night with you last weekend.' What they didn't know was I spent every single minute of that weekend at my boyfriend's so the lies didn't stack up. Dear Deidre: Cheating and can you get over it My boyfriend and I decided to ignore the comments, hoping whoever it was would get bored but they just kept repeating other untruths on his socials. Eventually we blocked the account but as soon as we'd blocked them, they would start up another. At first I felt it was us against this faceless saboteur, but now I can see in his eyes that he isn't quite sure about me any more. Their latest trick is to accuse me of being a prostitute. They posted a link to an escort site saying I had a secret past and sure enough there was a profile where they had used my photo. They have clearly cropped an image from my social media but I don't feel like my boyfriend is behind me any longer. And to be honest, I'm not sure that I want to be with someone who hasn't got my back anyway. I'm devastated and feel so anxious. I used to consider myself a quietly confident person but now I feel like hiding away. I'm sure everyone at work thinks there is some truth in these lies. Whenever I walk into a room, I can't help but notice the nudges, long looks and suddenly no one seems that interested in chatting to me. I don't want to let this malicious person win but I'm getting so tired. I wish I could make them stop and go back to how we were. HOW TO REBUILD TRUST You thought you were heading off into the sunset together but then an unexpected curveball comes spinning into your relationship and shatters the once unwavering trust you had. Perhaps they have started to hold back in conversations with you and you can feel an emotional gulf looming, or maybe they have become more attached to their phone making you acutely aware there's an unknown presence threatening your status quo. Worse still, you've discovered they've cheated physically or emotionally. Whatever the cause, when the trust crumbles between a couple, it can spell the beginning of the downfall. Only if you are both dedicated to working at rebuilding that trust has the relationship got a chance. Here are my trust re-enforcing tips: You've got to be prepared to talk about your worries to your partner. They have to be prepared to listen and reassure you, taking your concerns seriously. They also have to show genuine remorse and understand how their actions damaged your confidence in them. You both need to be ready to be honest about any issues in your relationship, without being unkind. This is about wanting to improve your connection, not blame one another. You both need to have the capacity to be consistent in your actions, proving you can be relied upon and ultimately trusted. Agree to have regular check-ins spending quality time together where you put all tech away and find out what is going on for the other in their life. Be patient. Rebuilding trust isn't a quick fix, especially if someone has cheated, it can take months, years even, of regular reassurance to find the more stable ground. And this is a biggie - you both have to be ready to forgive, or be forgiven and let all that resentment go. DEIDRE SAYS: You're fighting on two fronts; firstly you're dealing with this awful unsettling harassment and secondly you're facing the diminishing trust in your relationship. It is of course disappointing that your boyfriend seems to be questioning you - and actually on a practical level makes little sense. He knew from the start these slurs were fabricated so why would he now start believing that you worked as a prostitute - even when you insist this is a lie. Does he not see that it is at the very least a coincidence? It would be worth letting him know you feel he is pulling away and that you're worried he's starting to believe the untruths. He could be distancing himself, not because he doesn't believe you but because he's getting tired of the drama and wants a return to a care-free life. While the malice is being directed at you, his life and reputation are also being scrutinised. But you're only going to find out what is going through his mind if he is willing to talk. In terms of this harassment, it's really important that you start to record every incident. Don't interact with this person at all if they make any new contact with you or your boyfriend. It would be advisable if you and your boyfriend make your social accounts private to stop this individual from accessing your private lives. It's also a good idea to let any friend, family and managers know what you are going through, they may be able to help gather more evidence of this harassment and even help protect you. And be wary of the sort of content that you post on your social platforms - it all helps build a picture of your life and can easily provide material for anyone with ill intent. Also, contact the administrators of the escort site and ask them to take down your photo, they have a legal obligation to remove fake profiles. If they don't do anything, contact the web hosting company. I'm afraid you are the victim of harassment and stalking and you would be very wise to report these incidents to the police. You can also get in touch with the Suzy Lamplugh Trust ( who can offer further advice. Dear Deidre's Harassment Files Deidre's mailbag is full of harassment and stalking problems. One reader was left stressed and worried after a former friend was sending him malicious texts; another from a different subscriber who was living in fear after being stalked by a woman he went on a date with, while one woman was afraid to leave her home after receiving chilling messages from her husband's lover. Get in touch with the Dear Deidre team Every problem gets a personal reply from one of our trained counsellors. Sally Land is the Dear Deidre Agony Aunt. She achieved a distinction in the Certificate in Humanistic Integrative Counselling, has specialised in relationships and parenting. She has over 20 years of writing and editing women's issues and general features. Passionate about helping people find a way through their challenges, Sally is also a trustee for the charity Family Lives. Her team helps up to 90 people every week. Sally took over as The Sun's Agony Aunt when Deidre Sanders retired from the The Dear Deidre column four years ago. The Dear Deidre Team Of Therapists Also Includes: Kate Taylor: a sex and dating writer who is also training to be a counsellor. Kate is an advisor for dating website OurTime and is the author of five self-help books. Jane Allton: a stalwart of the Dear Deidre for over 20 years. Jane is a trained therapist, who specialises in family issues. She has completed the Basic Counselling Skills Level 1, 2, and 3. She also achieved the Counselling and Psychotherapy (CPCAB) Level 2 Certificate in Counselling Studies. Catherine Thomas: with over two decades worth of experience Catherine has also trained as a therapist, with the same credentials as Jane. She specialises in consumer and relationship issues. Fill out and submit our easy-to-use and confidential form and the Dear Deidre team will get back to you. You can also send a private message on the DearDeidreOfficial Facebook page or email us at: deardeidre@


BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
The furniture fraud that hoodwinked the Palace of Versailles
In the early 2010s, two ornate chairs said to have once belonged on the grounds of the Palace of Versailles appeared on the French antiques to be the most expensive chairs made for the last queen of France, Marie Antoinette, they were stamped with the seal of Nicolas-Quinibert Foliot, a celebrated menuisier – or carpenter – who worked in Paris in the 1700s.A significant find, the pair were declared "national treasures" by the French government in 2013, at the request of palace, which displays such items in its vast museum collection, expressed an interest in buying the chairs but the price was deemed too were instead sold to Qatari Prince Mohammed bin Hamad Al Thani for an eye-watering €2m (£1.67m). The chairs made up a remarkable number of 18th-Century royal furniture that had appeared on the antiques market in the past few items included another set of chairs purported to have sat in one of Marie Antoinette's chambers in Versailles; a separate pair said to have belonged to Madame du Barry, King Louis XV's mistress; the armchair of King Louis XVI's sister, Princess Élisabeth; and a pair of ployants – or stools – that belonged to the daughter of King Louis XV, Princess Louise É of these were bought by Versailles to display in its museum collection, while one chair was sold to the wealthy Guerrand-Hermès in 2016, this assortment of royal chairs would become embroiled in a national scandal that would rock the French antiques world, bringing the trade into reason? The chairs were in fact all scandal saw one of France's leading antiques experts, Georges "Bill" Pallot, and award-winning cabinetmaker, Bruno Desnoues, put on trial on charges of fraud and money laundering following a nine-year investigation. Galerie Kraemer and its director, Laurent Kraemer, were also accused of deception by gross negligence for selling on some of the chairs – something they both three defendants are set to appear at a court in Pontoise, near Paris on Wednesday following a trial in March. Mr Pallot and Mr Desnoues have admitted to their crimes, while Mr Kraemer and his gallery dispute the charge of deception by gross negligence. It started as a 'joke' Considered the top scholar on French 18th-Century chairs, having written the authoritative book on the subject, Mr Pallot was often called upon by Versailles, among others, to give his expert opinion on whether historical items were the real deal. He was even called as an expert witness in French courts when there were doubts about an item's accomplice, Mr Desnoues, was a decorated cabinetmaker and sculptor who had won a number of prestigious awards, including best sculptor in France in 1984, and had been employed as the main restorer of furniture at in court in March, Mr Pallot said the scheme started as a "joke" with Mr Desnoues in 2007 to see if they could replicate an armchair they were already working on restoring, belonging to Madame du of their crafts, they managed the feat, convincing other experts that it was a chair from the buoyed by their success, they started making more. Describing how they went about constructing the chairs, the two described in court how Mr Pallot sourced wood frames at various auctions for low prices, while Mr Desnoues aged wood at his workshop to make were then sent for gilding and upholstery, before Mr Desnoues added designs and a wood finish. He added stamps from some of the great furniture-workers of the 18th Century, which were either faked or taken from real furniture of the they were finished, Mr Pallot sold them through middlemen to galleries like Kraemer and one he himself worked at, Didier Aaron. They would then get sold onto auction houses such as Sotheby's of London and Drouot of Paris."I was the head and Desnoues was the hands," Mr Pallot told the court smilingly."It went like a breeze," he added. "Everything was fake but the money."Prosecutors allege the two men made an estimated profit of more than €3m off the forged chairs – though Mr Pallot and Mr Desnoues estimated their profits to be a lower amount of €700,000. The income was deposited in foreign bank accounts, prosecutors said. Lawyers representing Versailles told the BBC that Mr Pallot, a lecturer at the Sorbonne, managed to deceive the institution because of his "privileged access to the documentation and archives of Versailles and the Louvre Museum as part of his academic research".A statement from lawyer Corinne Hershkovitch's team said that thanks to Mr Pallot's "thorough knowledge" of the inventories of royal furniture recorded as having existed at Versailles in the 18th Century, he was able to determine which items were missing from collections and to then make them with the help of Mr Desnoues also had access to original chairs he had made copies of, they added, "enabling him to produce fakes that had all the visual appearance of an authentic, up to the inventory numbers and period labels"."The fraudulent association between these two professionally accomplished men, recognised by their peers, made it possible to deceive the French institutions that regarded them as partners and to betray their trust, thereby damaging the reputation of Versailles and its curators," they Pascal Rayer said the trial highlighted the need for more robust regulation of the art market, and also shone a light on the standards antiques dealers should abide court heard authorities were alerted to the scheme when the lavish lifestyle of a Portuguese man and his partner caught the attention of French by police about the acquisition of properties in France and Portugal worth €1.2m while on an income of about €2,500 a month, the man – who it turned out worked as a handyman in Parisian galleries – confessed to his part in working as a middleman who collaborated in the furniture fraud, AFP news agency reported. The money trail then led investigators to Mr Desnoues and Mr Pallot. A case of deceit by gross negligence? Some of those originally indicted in the case, including middlemen, later had charges against them charges against both Laurent Kraemer and Galerie Kraemer, which sold on some of the forged chairs to collectors such as Versailles and Qatar's Prince al-Thani, were allege that while the gallery itself may have been duped into first buying the fake pieces, Mr Kraemer and the gallery were "grossly negligent" in failing to sufficiently check the items' authenticity before selling them on to collectors at high prices. In his closing arguments, prosecutor Mr Rayer said that based on Galerie Kraemer's "reputation and contacts, they could have taken the furniture to Versailles or the Louvre to compare them."They could also have hired other experts given the amounts at stake and considering the opacity on the origin of the chairs."Speaking in court, a lawyer representing Mr Kraemer and the gallery insisted his client "is victim of the fraud, not an accomplice", stating Mr Kraemer never had direct contact with the a statement to the BBC, lawyers Martin Reynaud and Mauricia Courrégé added: "The gallery was not an accomplice of the counterfeiters, the gallery did not know the furniture was fake, and it could not have detected it"."Like the Château de Versailles and the specialists who classified the furniture as national treasures, the Kraemer gallery was a victim of the forgers," they added."We are waiting for the judgement to recognise this."The BBC has contacted Mr Pallot's lawyer for comment. The BBC was unable to reach Mr Desnoues or his lawyer.


Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Pro-Palestinian protester in two-tier police row is Islamist refugee
A pro-Palestinian activist who evaded terror charges in a two-tier policing row is an Islamist propagandist granted asylum in Britain, The Telegraph can reveal. The demonstrator, who avoided prosecution after chanting ' I love the 7th of October ' at a London rally last year, can now be named as Mohammad al-Mail, a 27-year-old Kuwaiti national granted refugee status in the UK in 2017. In May, The Telegraph published footage of Mr Mail glorifying the Hamas massacre and shouting, 'I like an organisation that starts with H' through a megaphone at an anti-Israel protest in Swiss Cottage, north-west London, last September. He was later arrested on suspicion of terrorism offences but never charged. By contrast, a Jewish man who attended a counter-protest on the same day and briefly held a placard mocking Hezbollah's leader was charged after police claimed the sign could cause 'distress' to terrorist sympathisers. It took eight months for the Crown Prosecution Service to admit there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. The Telegraph can now reveal that Mr Mail claimed he avoided prosecution by telling counter-terrorism officers that the 'H' in his chant stood for the Home Office, rather than Hamas. In footage obtained by The Telegraph – which police confirmed they had not seen – Mr Mail appears to boast of misleading investigators. In an Arabic-language podcast aired in March, he said the case 'fell apart' after he gave what appeared to be a knowingly false answer when asked: 'Who do you mean by the letter H?' He said: 'Immediately, I answered, 'It could be the Home Office', you know, the ministry of the interior. 'I love the ministry of the interior', and so on. 'Truly, as the saying goes, 'The worst calamity is the one that makes you laugh'', he joked, adding that officers 'wanted to delve into the depths of my conscience to know what I truly believe'. The Metropolitan Police twice referred his case to the CPS but he was never charged. A source familiar with the case said prosecutors declined to bring charges, fearing it would be 'speculation' to infer support for a proscribed group from his chant. The Telegraph can also reveal that Mr Mail's support for terror groups was not limited to the Sept 20 protest. Since being granted asylum, he has used the Upper Hand Organisation, his campaign group, to promote an Islamist ideology fundamentally at odds with British democratic values. In the same podcast, he urged supporters to 'seize opportunities' created by the October 7 attack – the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. 'Not every day is like October 7,' he said. 'If an opportunity arises, we must fully exploit it. If you strike, make it hurt.' His website hosts a string of Islamist manifestos and incendiary texts. He has criticised Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and HTS, the Syrian group, for being too pragmatic and failing to advance global jihad. He wrote that such groups have 'ultimately succumbed to the international system and failed to bring about significant change to the concept of jihad itself – jihad, which is understood as a struggle to establish Sharia on earth'. Mr Mail has promoted the jihadist cause online and distributed leaflets and stickers at protests. On Aug 17 2024, the Upper Hand Organisation issued a pamphlet titled Wake Up! Protect the Honour of Islam, which portrayed the Israel-Palestine conflict as a 'war of faith'. It glorifies jihad, urges mobilisation, and repeats the slogan 'a new Khaybar awaits' – a phrase often used to incite violence against Jews. The document claims his group is 'committed to channelling resources toward strategic projects to achieve Islamic dominance'. On Nov 11 2024, Mr Mail announced he would surrender to police over his chants but told supporters to 'continue the path of jihad'. He described peaceful Muslims as 'slaves and dwarves' and issued a warning to Britain: 'What is coming to you is terrifying – either our annihilation or yours.' In recent months, he has used his platform to lobby Parliament to de-proscribe Hamas and divert taxpayer funds to sharia courts. He also opposes the banning of child marriage, arguing it discriminates against 16 and 17-year-old Muslim girls. In a statement to The Telegraph, the Met said it was unaware of Mr Mail's apparent admission and record of Islamist advocacy until contacted by this newspaper. A spokesman said the force 'does not believe the material provided to us was known to officers at the time of their initial investigation. It did not form part of the case put to the CPS'. 'Officers will carefully review it to identify any offences so the appropriate action can be taken.' The case has been condemned as an example of two-tier policing, deepening embarrassment for Scotland Yard and raising concerns over national security among senior politicians and extremism experts. On Friday evening, Chris Philp, the shadow policing minister, said that, in light of The Telegraph's latest revelations, 'the police must urgently re-investigate the incident with a view to re-arresting the man concerned'. He added: 'I am deeply worried that someone came here, was granted asylum and then abused the UK's generosity by expressing extremist views. This is why our human rights and asylum laws need to be changed.' His comments were echoed by Lord Walney, the Government's former extremism tsar, who described the latest evidence uncovered by this newspaper as 'disturbing and raises serious questions for the Metropolitan Police'. 'The fact officers were apparently unaware of this open source material when they submitted the case to the Crown Prosecution Service suggests an alarming lack of rigour in their initial investigation,' he said. 'In light of this, it is vital that the police reopen the case to ensure national security can be protected.' The Jewish counter-protester, who was charged for 'causing distress', said the revelations were yet more evidence of 'two-tier policing'. The CPS dropped the case against him last month, eight months after he was first arrested. 'The police were sufficiently well-resourced to know I'd be at the counter-protest the following week and to circulate my photograph among officers on the ground so they could arrest me. Yet counter-terror police were apparently unable to carry out a basic Google search on this man before interviewing him,' he said. The CPS said it is urgently reviewing its decision not to press charges against Mr Mail. The Upper Hand Organisation, which he founded in 2012, was already active in Kuwait when Mr Mail arrived in Britain. During his studies, he was convicted in absentia of 13 offences by the Gulf state, including defaming the Emir and spreading subversive ideas, receiving a combined sentence of 53 years. He said these were politically and religiously motivated and was granted asylum in the UK on May 5 2017. He later received a partial pardon but remains in the UK. A Home Office spokesman said: 'Supporting a proscribed organisation is a serious criminal offence. The investigation and prosecution of criminal offences, including determining whether an offence has been committed or not, is a matter for the police and Crown Prosecution Service, who are operationally independent. 'It is our longstanding policy not to comment on individual cases.'