Brad Pitt Accused of ‘Criminal Theft’ in Angelina Jolie Winery Battle

The battle continues between exes Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt over their French vineyard Château Miraval.

Jolie has been trying to sell her shares of the winery to Tenute del Mondo, a subsidiary of Stoli Group, which is now countersuing Brad.

Pitt had previously sued Tenute del Mondo, claiming they illegally bought Jolie’s shares.

Tenute’s latest legal filing accuses Brad of “criminal theft,” alleging that he effectively used the winery as a personal piggy bank, which means they gained less profits.

“Extra” recently spoke with “The Big Money Show’s” Taylor Rigg, who weighed in on the lawsuit.

She said, “They are alleging that he spent $1 million on a renovation of a pool and instead of using those assets and money to pay investors, he diverted those monies to personal business ventures, like a gin brand, a cosmetic line, and even a recording studio.”

A source close to Brad commented on the lawsuit, calling it “absurd,” telling “Extra,” “Just shows the lengths to which Stoli will go and exposes its hypocrisy.”

The insider argued that Brad’s name and his connection to the winery is “the key reason for its success.”

The source noted that Stoli had filed a similar claim in France, which “went nowhere.”

Tomorrow, Brad and Angelina are due back in court to battle it out over nondisclosure agreements.

Jolie is asking for a jury trial.

A security owner, Tony Webb, who now works only for Pitt, recently filed court docs in support of the actor’s motion requesting that Jolie disclose additional NDAs she has with other third parties, including her staff.

Webb worked with Jolie until 2020.

In his declaration, Webb claimed that Jolie’s assistant Michael Vieira reached out to him for help in dissuading two bodyguards from testifying against her.

Webb stated, “During the call, Mr. Vieira told me that he had heard that two contractors who had provided personal security for Ms. Jolie through SRS Global might be testifying in the family court case. Mr. Vieira then asked me to stop these two individuals from testifying.”

Webb argued, “I understood that Mr. Vieira was making this request on behalf of Ms. Jolie. I explained to Mr. Vieira that I had no power to stop them because they were independent contractors and not employees. Mr. Vieira then told me that his call should serve as a reminder that those individuals had entered into nondisclosure agreements with Ms. Jolie and that I should remind them of that and tell them that if they testified in the family law case, Ms. Jolie would sue them.”

He continued, “One of the two individuals, Ross Foster, specified that he intended to testify regardless of the NDA, if he received a court subpoena. When Mr. Foster told me this, he also told me that if asked, he would testify about statements he overheard that Ms. Jolie made to the children, encouraging them to avoid spending time with Mr. Pitt during custody visits.”

In response to Webb’s declaration, Jolie’s attorney Paul Murphy said, “Mr. Pitt’s continued attempt to equate common NDAs for security personnel and housekeepers covering confidential information employees learn at work with him demanding an expanded NDA to ensure the continued coverup of his deplorable actions remains shameful.”

Murphy argued, “This case is not about NDAs in general, but about power and control. All Angelina has ever wanted was separation and health, with positive relationships between all members of their family, including Mr. Pitt. She looks forward to the day when he is finally able to let her go.”

In April, Jolie’s team claimed that Pitt wouldn’t allow Jolie to sell her portion of the winery to him until she agreed to sign a “more onerous” and “expansive” NDA.

Pitt’s team responded to Jolie’s filing, saying, “The extent of Jolie’s reliance on NDAs will help establish that Jolie was experienced with NDAs and understood their legitimate business purposes and undermine Jolie’s claim that Pitt and Perrin’s proposal of a standard NDA with a broad carve-out for legal proceedings was ‘unconscionable’ and ‘against public policy.’”