Offence against property
Misappropriation defence lawyer
Art. 253 Criminal Code
Misappropriation punishes anyone who, lawfully holding another's property — through deposit, commission, administration or any arrangement requiring them to hand it over or return it — incorporates it into their own assets or diverts it from its intended purpose. Unlike fraud, no initial deceit is required: the problem arises later, when the duty to return the property is not honoured.
It is common in company, inheritance and community-of-owners relationships: the dispute usually turns on whether a genuine duty to hand over the property existed and whether the use given to the funds was authorised.
In a corporate or inheritance dispute, classifying the facts as misappropriation rather than a simple civil disagreement completely changes what both sides stand to lose.
Scope of work
- Defence of directors and managers against allegations of misappropriation
- Private prosecution in corporate, inheritance or community-of-owners matters
- Documentary reconstruction of the title of possession and the destination of the funds
- Drawing the line between misappropriation and purely civil liability
When to call
- You are being pursued as a director or manager over funds you say were applied correctly
- You suspect a partner, director or manager has used funds they were meant to hand over to you
- There is an inheritance or corporate dispute that could be referred to the criminal courts
Frequently asked questions
How does this differ from fraud?
In fraud, deceit brings about the handover; in misappropriation, possession is lawful from the outset and the wrongdoing arises later, when the duty to return or hand over the property is not honoured. Confusing the two is common, and it directly affects how the facts are classified.
Is simply not returning the money enough for it to be an offence?
Not necessarily: it must be shown that there was a duty to hand over or return the property, and that it was incorporated into the person's own assets or diverted from its agreed purpose. A mere delay or an accounting discrepancy does not, on its own, amount to misappropriation.
Can the director of a company be liable?
Yes, it is one of the most common profiles: directors who use company funds for purposes other than those authorised. In these cases it is also worth examining whether a corporate offence under article 290 et seq. of the Criminal Code is also present.