Brad Pitt faces fresh allegations in Miraval vineyard clash
The legal battle over Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt's French vineyard is still ongoing. This time, the actor has been accused by the company that bought the shares from his ex-wife of concealing embezzled assets and manipulating the criminal code.
The legal dispute between Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt over the French vineyard, Chateau Miraval, is in full swing. There seems to be no indication that the former couple will reconcile any time soon. The vineyard, originally intended to be developed into a family business, was purchased by the couple in 2008 through their investment companies. However, the end of their relationship thwarted those business plans.
After the breakup, Angelina Jolie decided to exit the venture. In 2021, she sold her shares to the Stoli Group, controlled by Russian billionaire Yuri Shefler, which led to Pitt's objection. The actor accused his ex-wife of breaching an agreement that prohibited the sale of shares to third parties without his consent. In response, Nouvel, the company sold to Stoli, accused Pitt of improper use of Miraval's assets.
Brad Pitt is facing trouble over the vineyard in France
According to foreign media, Tenute del Mondo, a subsidiary of Stoli, filed a lawsuit against the star, claiming that he redirected his assets to projects without a "business purpose" and manipulated the California criminal code. The In Touch service obtained comments from the company's lawyer.
Tenute del Mondo asserts that neither Brad nor the Chateau Miraval CEO had the proper authorization to divert funds to unrelated purposes or personal use. The company also accuses him of acting with criminal intent by intentionally hiding instances of misappropriation, according to the lawyer's remarks shared by the service.
According to information obtained by "In Touch" from someone close to the star, the allegations are said to be unfounded. The informant also claims that it is a deliberate attempt to harm Pitt.
A source close to the actor describes this as yet another futile effort by certain parties to protect their interests. They argue that it is not a genuine defense but rather relies on outright falsehoods and baseless allegations, coupled with an unusual attempt to exploit the California criminal code.
