Prison sentences requested for €1m MaPrimeRenov’ fraud

Prosecutors have demanded up to four years in prison for seven people accused of stealing more than €1 million in an “organised” fraud concerning the French energy renovation scheme MaPrimeRenov’.

Seven men – six French nationals and one Turkish national, aged between 27 and 46 – are currently on trial for their alleged part in the fraud. They are suspected of having been part of “a structured organisation set up with the aim of illegally diverting public funds”, states the European prosecutor Emmanuelle Fraysse.

Each “had their own role” in the “structured organisation”, which claimed to make energy audits of properties, she said.

Housing agency l’Agence nationale de l'habitat (which distributes the MaPrimeRenov’ grants) is seeking €1.13 million for material damages, and €100,000 for moral damages. TF1 Info reports that consumer protection association Que Choisir Ensemble (formerly known as UFC-Que Choisir), is also seeking €100,000 for damages suffered by consumers.

The MaPrimeRenov’ scheme is a government-funded grant initiative that enables homeowners to claim financial aid to partially cover renovation projects that make homes more eco-friendly.

The scheme reopened in February 2026 after the government paused it in 2025 due to extensive fraud.

It has seen a number of changes, including amendments to certain measures introduced in September 2025, however several key requirements remain, such as the necessity for work to be carried out by an RGE-certified professional, and for the property to be a main home.

• How alleged MaPrimeRenov' fraud worked

The alleged scheme centred on subsidies for energy audits under MaPrimeRénov’. 

Prosecutors say the group submitted more than 2,000 applications via a company called UG Audit between mid-2022 and early 2023, using a high-volume, “industrialised” method. 

Audits were often not carried out properly, performed by unqualified individuals or using misused certifications.

A network of salespeople canvassed homeowners to generate applications, after which grants paid out by the Agence nationale de l'habitat were collected by one of the defendants and redistributed within the group. 

Many residents were unaware that applications had been submitted in their name, with new email accounts created without their knowledge and forms sometimes signed by defendants on their behalf. 

When audits were carried out, they were often brief and incomplete, leaving homeowners with unusable reports, while personal data was manipulated to validate fraudulent claims.

Consumer group Que Choisir Ensemble says the case highlights the confusion and potential risk to affected households, as well as the wider erosion of trust in the MaPrimeRénov’ scheme.

Prison and fines demanded

Prosecutor Ms Fraysse has called for four years in prison (including two suspended) for one defendant, named Enes A. The prosecutor claimed that Mr A. was “at the heart of the fraud” and the “de facto manager” of the company that submitted the fraudulent claims (UG Audit).

She has also called for three years imprisonment (one suspended) for two other men; one, Arif D., is accused of being another “mastermind” in the fraud, and responsible for “verifying the purported audits carried out”, she said. Another man, Pierre-Alexandre T. was allegedly responsible for recruiting and managing the sales network, she added.

She has also called for between 18 months and two years’ imprisonment for four other defendants, for their role in allegedly providing the certifications necessary for the fraud, and carrying out audits without the necessary skills or certification.

She has also sought fines of between €20,000 and €100,000 for the men, and a five-year ban on the practice of any profession involving the canvassing of private individuals.

Organisation denial

The men deny the allegations, particularly those concerning the “organised” claims, and say that their actions were not related to those of the other accused.

Instead, they say that the fraud was a result of “mistakes made by young entrepreneurs”, “negligence”, and “a lack of regulatory knowledge”.

The trial is continuing, with the defence’s closing arguments, today (March 24).