Brad Pitt accused of fund diversion in vineyard dispute
The legal dispute over the French vineyard owned by Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt continues. The actor has now been accused by the company that purchased shares from his ex-wife, of concealing misappropriated assets and manipulating legal codes.
The ongoing legal battle between Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt over the French vineyard Château Miraval shows no signs of resolution. The vineyard, which was intended to be a family business, was acquired by the couple in 2008 through their investment companies. However, following the end of their relationship, these business plans fell through.
After their separation, Angelina Jolie decided to exit the venture. In 2021, she sold her stake to the Stoli Group, controlled by Russian billionaire Yuri Shefler, which led to objections from Pitt. He accused his ex-wife of violating an agreement that disallowed selling shares to third parties without his approval. In response, Nouvel, the company sold to Stoli, accused Pitt of mismanaging Miraval's assets.
Brad Pitt faces problems over vineyard in France
According to international media, Tenute del Mondo, a subsidiary of Stoli, has filed a lawsuit against the star, alleging that he diverted assets to projects lacking a "business purpose" and manipulated legal codes in California. The lawyer for the company provided comments to the In Touch service.
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.
A source close to the star told "In Touch" that these allegations are believed to be groundless. The insider also asserts that it is a deliberate effort to damage Pitt's reputation.
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.
