[dupe] Earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46868998

Ok, that's the second article on this that doesn't mention how it works in France.

I will explain because I see a lot of post that could be better if their author understood that the French system isn't the US system.

France 'prosecutor' role is divided in two: one is called 'procureur' and represent the state, but is chosen among judges by the executive power. The second is 'juge d'instruction' and represent the judiciary. They are chosen nominated by the local court without any executive power involvement. They lead the investigation, they order the raids, they order the arrest etc, without involvement from the 'procureur'.

The 'procureur' ask for a 'juge d'instruction' to lead an investigation on X/Y or Z (this fucking company name makes everything worse FFS). The judge will then collect evidence, for and against the procureur case, and then if necessary will ask for raids and auditions to finalise. When that's done and all the new evidence is collected (it can take on average 2 years, but if it's an international case like for our ex-president, it can take 10+), the 'juge d'instruction' will present all the gathered evidence to the procureur (who will decide to pursue or not) _and_ the accused.

This system exists to avoid as much as possible the executive (police and politicians) to use investigations as a scare tactic. Of course the magistrates know each other, and both corruption and influence is possible, and maybe that's the case here, but you ought to know the raid can't be at the behest of the procureur/president. We take separation of powers seriously here

@dang The title here is misleading. The original not.

X didn't raid the prosecutors offices, the prosecutors did