According to the French religions news site Religactu, which conducted an in‑depth review of hundreds of internal documents and email exchanges, France’s anti‑cult watchdog—the Mission interministérielle de vigilance et de lutte contre les dérives sectaires (Miviludes)—now finds itself embroiled in a scandal that could reshape public confidence in the very institutions charged with guarding against sectarian abuse.
Critics have long argued that the Miviludes’s very mandate poses thorny questions of freedom of conscience and religious liberty, since the body’s broad remit to identify and combat “cultic deviations” risks encroaching on legitimate spiritual and philosophical practices. When the Mission announced in May 2021 that it would dedicate a full one million euros to a first‑of‑its‑kind call for proposals, it was presented as a bold assertion of state commitment—but for many observers, it underscored the uneasy balance between safeguarding citizens and respecting pluralism.
Within months, civil‑liberties advocates pressed for transparency around the fund’s allocation. The Coordination des Associations et des Particuliers pour la Liberté de Conscience (CAP LC) formally requested comprehensive access to all application files—evaluation criteria, applicant rosters, email threads and a master spreadsheet tracking each proposal—under France’s administrative‑information law. When only partial disclosures were made, CAP LC turned to the Commission d’Accès aux Documents Administratifs (CADA), which in June 2022 ordered the Miviludes to release everything. Yet, by late summer, key records remained conspicuously absent, despite written confirmations that they existed. In a complaint filed in June 2023, CAP LC accused the Mission of illegally withholding documents and of potentially falsifying attestations submitted to oversight bodies—offenses that carry steep penalties under French criminal law.
The spotlight soon shifted to some of the country’s most prominent anti‑sect organizations. The Union Nationale des Associations de Défense des Familles et de l’Individu (UNADFI), for decades presenting itself as a pillar of France’s fight against sectarian manipulation and recipient of state recognition as a public utility, drew particular scrutiny. Between 2012 and 2020, more than three‑quarters of its budget came from public subsidies, even as the group reported persistent deficits. Yet, according to CAP LC’s allegations, the grant it received from the Miviludes call—meant for hiring staff, producing educational materials and rolling out outreach campaigns—left scant trace of these activities. No recruitment records, no brochures or school‑based presentations have been substantiated, leading investigators to suspect that UNADFI merely diverted earmarked funds to cover its structural shortfall.
Not far behind was the Fédération Européenne des Centres de Recherche et d’Information sur le Sectarisme (FECRIS), a network uniting roughly 20 European anti‑cult centers. FECRIS had secured €20,000 to host an international seminar in Marbella; when the pandemic forced a pivot to virtual events, it allegedly retained the full sum rather than returning unspent logistical fees, instead applying the money to unrelated legal disputes in Germany. Critics argue that this reallocation breached public‑fund management rules and amounted to abuse of trust.
By autumn 2023, CAP LC’s grievances had widened to encompass the Centre Contre les Manipulations Mentales (CCMM) and its regional branches, which together drew more than €200,000. Rather than detailing each project’s failings, Religactu’s reporting emphasizes a broader pattern: promised deliverables were late, partial or never materialized; interim and final reports were seldom provided; and accountability was minimal. Adding to the controversy, CCMM’s president—and UNADFI’s president—both served on the Miviludes Advisory Council, the very body that shaped grant‑making strategy and approved allocations. Such dual roles raise stark questions about conflicts of interest, since those entrusted with oversight were simultaneously beneficiaries of the funds they helped distribute.
The controversy took another turn in early 2024, when CAP LC pointed out that more than €110,000 had gone to for‑profit outfits—a comic‑book publisher and a micro‑enterprise videographer—despite the call’s explicit restriction to non‑profits. These arrangements, critics contend, effectively bypassed competitive‑bidding rules and may have violated the French Public Procurement Code.
In response to these mounting allegations, the Parquet National Financier (PNF) has opened a preliminary inquiry, issuing judicial requisitions for all accounting records, contract files and internal communications linked to the one‑million‑euro program. A parallel “information judiciaire” has been launched to examine potential forgery of public documents—specifically, whether the attestations provided to CADA and administrative tribunals falsely claimed full compliance with disclosure orders. Forging such documents can carry prison sentences of up to 15 years. Meanwhile, the Cour des Comptes’ litigation chamber is conducting its own audit of the Miviludes’ procedures, scrutinizing procurement compliance, grant‑allocation integrity and the broader fiscal impact on the state budget.
As this saga unfolds, it poses another central dilemma: how can the state pursue an urgent campaign against so-called harmful sectarian practices without risking overreach and undermining Europe’s commitment to freedom of conscience? Thierry Valle, president of CAP LC, has framed the issue starkly: “This is not an attack on the fight against sectarian deviations, but a defence of the integrity of public policies and a call to ensure that what must be reformed, is indeed reformed. The inquiry must be exhaustive”
———-
First published in this link of The European Times.
