Hi Chrissie,
There is no point in having this law, vice caché, if the courts refuse to enforce it, which is exactly what they have done. To give a notaire, who colluded in the fraud, a verbal slap on the wrist due to "inexperience" is also blatant bias by the court. The statement by the Bureau d'Aide is staggering. So he admitted receiving the envelope, but denied that the documents were inside? How are you supposed to prove that they were inside. It's blatant bias again.
The fact that there are 106 other victims of this scam, means that the corruption of the French judiciary and related professions is systemic. The idea that immobiliers are too well protected and so not worth suing, but a notaire is, indicates to me that your first avocat was also "inexperienced" or just plain corrupt/biased.
Has this happened to French people or only foreigners? If the latter, it's plain racial discrimination, outlawed by French law, which appears to be unenforceable against the French. Could you take the case to ECHR on the grounds of racial discrimination by the French judiciary?
If I were in your position, I would feel that I had nothing left to lose. It seems that confidentiality of the court system is protecting the guilty. I would seriously consider posting my story all over the internet, as you seem to be doing. However, I would name the immobilier, notaire, judges in the case, bureau d'aide, the vendors etc and hope they would take me to court for libel or defamation. Where possible, I would try to ensure that the media attended the court hearing.
I don't know the situation in French or European courts but in English courts, anything said in evidence in the court is privileged and you can't be prosecuted for it. It can even be irrelevant and inadmissable for the case but it can still be said for attendees to hear and reported on by the media. This is explained in a short story, Privilege, which is found in No Comebacks by Frederick Forsyth, published 1982.
I would think that your case is precisely one which would get the attention of MPs or MEPs of UKIP and BNP. They would want to exploit it for their own ends, but it would be talked about, written about in the court of public opinion.