Breach of trust: establishing the facts, building the evidence

Written by Guillaume Pouillier, CNAPS-licensed private detective, licence no. AGD 095-2024-03-06-20190240581 · Last updated: July 14, 2026

Misappropriation is proven through its material trace: what was handed over, what was done with it, who benefited. Our investigation reconstructs that chain, hand-over, agreed use, diversion, enrichment, with dated facts on which both the criminal and civil routes can prosper.

In which situations do we intervene?

The classic cases: a partner or manager diverting company funds, an employee using entrusted money, equipment or vehicles for their own benefit, an agent (power of attorney, management mandate) exceeding the agreed use, a contractor keeping the deposit without performing, a relative draining a vulnerable person’s accounts.

The legal common thread: a voluntary hand-over (what distinguishes breach of trust from theft) followed by a use contrary to what was agreed. The practical common thread: the diversion is rarely visible in the accounts alone, it shows in lifestyle, acquisitions, structures created to house the funds. That is exactly what field work and the asset investigation bring to light. For vulnerable persons, see also the inheritance investigation (undue influence, capture).

How do we reconstruct a misappropriation?

From both ends: upstream, the hand-over and the agreed use (contracts, mandates, powers of attorney, flows); downstream, the unjustified enrichment, acquisitions, incompatible lifestyle, shell companies, front men. When the two ends meet through dated facts, the case holds.

Concretely, we cross documentary analysis (what your records already show), open sources (companies created, visible assets, displayed activity) and field work (actual use of a vehicle or premises, effective hand-over, occupation of an acquired property). Chronology is decisive: enrichment immediately following the presumed diversions speaks for itself. The final report lays out that chronology with its evidence, usable for a criminal complaint with civil-party petition as for a liability action.

Criminal complaint or civil action: which to choose?

The two routes often combine: the criminal one (art. 314-1: up to 3 years’ imprisonment and a €375,000 fine) applies pressure and unlocks judicial investigation powers; the civil one targets compensation and fund recovery. Your lawyer decides, our file serves both.

One factor drives the timetable: limitation (6 years for this offence, in principle from discovery for concealed facts) and the risk of organised insolvency. The earlier the investigation starts, the fresher the enrichment trail and the better the chances that protective measures (attachments, security) catch something. Our solvency module assesses precisely what remains attachable at the moment of action.

Who can instruct us, and in what framework?

The victim company (director, CFO, legal department), the injured individual, or their lawyer, often the best setup: counsel’s instruction places our exchanges under professional privilege and aligns the investigation with the procedural strategy.

The framework is that of all our assignments: CNAPS licence (art. L621-1 Internal Security Code), fairness and proportionality of evidence, professional secrecy (art. 226-13 Criminal Code). One precaution specific to internal company files: do not alert the person concerned before the file is built, a forewarned suspect deletes, transfers and organises their insolvency. We therefore work silently, and the moment of confrontation is chosen with your counsel.

How much does it cost?

Our assignments start at €85/hour (excl. VAT) (full day €850, volume discounts). Every case gets a free written quote before any commitment, no hidden fees.

The budget depends on the depth of the arrangement: a simple diversion is documented in a few sessions; a file with shell companies and front men is quoted in phases. The initial quote sets the stages and their stop points.

See the full price list.

Frequently asked questions