Breach of trust & money laundering

Initial situation

Our client, Mr. F., was the manager of a point of sale within a major contract catering group. He was reported by his employer after a private investigation firm hired by the company documented significant stock discrepancies over several months. This led to a criminal complaint for breach of trust and money laundering. The civil party claimed a total loss of nearly 195,000 euros. Mr. F. faced not only a possible custodial sentence, but also a civil conviction that could have permanently damaged his financial and professional life.

Legal issues

The matter raised two distinct challenges. On the criminal side, the defence had to determine whether the qualifications of breach of trust and money laundering were legally sound, in light of the statutory basis invoked and the evidence actually produced. On the civil side, the priority was to challenge the loss calculation put forward by the civil party, since it relied almost exclusively on an accounting analysis carried out by a private firm hired and paid by the employer.

Defence strategy

1. Challenging the evidential weight of the private investigation

The entire prosecution case rested on findings produced by a private investigation firm mandated and paid by the civil party itself. The firm demonstrated that such material, produced by a partial provider, could not on its own meet the standard of proof required to establish Mr. F.'s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The lack of any adversarial process when the findings were collected and the one-sided nature of the procedure were raised as major grievances at the hearing.

2. Contesting the criminal qualification

The firm carried out a precise analysis of the constitutive elements of breach of trust and money laundering, and demonstrated the gaps in the prosecution's case: characterisation of the prior precarious handing-over of the assets, proof of fraudulent intent, and the causal link between the alleged acts and the loss claimed.

3. Dismantling the civil party's case

The civil party claimed a loss of close to 195,000 euros, based on a stock-discrepancy calculation method. The firm conducted a critical, detailed review of the accounting evidence: methodological errors, insufficient consideration of legitimate factors that could explain the gaps (breakage, staff consumption, inventory variances), and the absence of any distinction between the conduct attributable to our client and that attributable to other staff members.

4. Rebuilding the figures and showing the loss was not attributable

The firm produced concrete evidence to correct the figures advanced and to show that almost the entire claimed loss could not be linked, even indirectly, to the acts specifically attributed to Mr. F. The actually demonstrable loss was thereby reduced to a small fraction of the amount initially claimed.

5. Sentencing strategy: securing a suspended sentence

Once the prosecution case had been significantly weakened, the firm developed an argument focused on Mr. F.'s personality, his personal and professional circumstances, and the absence of relevant antecedents, in order to obtain a fully suspended sentence and avoid any imprisonment.

What the law says: breach of trust and money laundering

Breach of trust is defined at Article 314-1 of the French Criminal Code as the act of misappropriating, to one's own benefit, funds, values or property of any kind that have been handed over and accepted on the condition of being returned or used for a specified purpose. It differs from theft in that the initial transfer was consented to. The offence carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment and a 375,000 EUR fine (raised from three to five years by the law of 24 December 2020). The absence of any one of the constitutive elements (precarious handing-over, material misappropriation, fraudulent intent) is enough to bar conviction.

Money laundering consists of facilitating the false justification of the origin of property or income belonging to the perpetrator of a crime or offence which generated a profit (Article 324-1 of the Criminal Code). In professional misappropriation cases, it is often added to the prosecution as soon as unusual banking movements are detected.

Learn more about our business criminal law practice or read the guide fraud lawyer in Paris.

This case study is published for educational purposes. Names and identifying details have been anonymised. It does not constitute a guarantee of result, as every case is unique in its facts and legal context.