Facts

The appellant, [X.] , was convicted by the Police Court of the Republic and Canton of Geneva on 23 March 2018 for threats and breach of a maintenance obligation, and sentenced to a suspended fine of 90 day-fines at CHF 600 per day, with a probation period of three years, and to a fine of CHF 10,000. The Criminal Appeals and Review Chamber of the Geneva Court of Justice dismissed his appeal by judgment of 2 April 2019 (AARP/125/2019).

The facts found are as follows. The appellant and the respondent [A.] have been married since 1989 and have three children, including the son [D.] , born in 1996. A civil decision of 11 April 2014, confirmed by the Federal Supreme Court on 1 December 2014 (5A_386/2014), required the wife to pay [B.] CHF 35,000 per month, then CHF 30,000 from September 2014, for his maintenance and that of their son. The appellant never paid these amounts in full, except in May 2014 and May 2016, and paid an average of CHF 9,000 per month. He further offset against the maintenance payments charges relating to family properties (Valais, United States, Geneva) and the payment of his wife's debts.

On 21 March 2013, the appellant telephoned his son [D.] to threaten to disinherit him, deprive him of his millions, cut off all contact and take the matter to the press, so that he would alter his statements made to the Child Protection Service (SPMi). The son then went to the SPMi on 26 March 2013 to change his statements.

The appellant lodges a criminal appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, seeking primarily his acquittal and, in the alternative, the annulment of the judgment and remittal of the case to the cantonal authority.

Considerations

On the complaint of breach of the right to be heard (art. 389 para. 1 and 3, 107 para. 1 let. e, 139 para. 2 CrimPC, 343 para. 3 CrimPC), the appellant criticises the cantonal court for refusing to hear his son again. The Federal Supreme Court recalls that a refusal to take further evidence breaches the right to be heard only if the anticipatory assessment of the evidence is arbitrary. The son had already been heard in adversarial proceedings and had written on several occasions; a new hearing almost six years after the events was not useful, and a repeat hearing was not required, there being no situation of 'statements against statements'. The complaint is dismissed.

On the complaint of breach of art. 30 and 33 SCC concerning the withdrawal of the complaint, the cantonal court found that the son had never expressed the will to withdraw his complaint for the events of March 2013; his renunciation of participation as a civil party did not amount to a withdrawal. Determining what a person knew or wished relates to findings of fact binding on the Federal Supreme Court (art. 105 para. 1 FSCA), save arbitrariness. The appellant does not demonstrate arbitrariness and his criticism is purely appellate in nature. The complaint is dismissed to the extent that it is admissible.

On the assessment of evidence and the establishment of the facts (art. 97 para. 1, 105 para. 2 FSCA, art. 9 Cst.), the Federal Supreme Court notes that the appellant re-argues the evidence in its entirety without demonstrating arbitrariness. It is not enough that another solution be conceivable or preferable. The cantonal court coherently found that the telephone call of 21 March 2013 had taken place, that the threats had been consistent in the son's statements, and that the subsequent retractions…