Unlawful taking of interests: when an association director defrauds protected adults

Imagine: you entrust the management of your elderly parent's assets, placed under guardianship, to an association. You think the money serves their well-being, their care, their housing. But what if the director of that association used those funds to pay a construction company with which they are connected, without ever carrying out the planned works? That is exactly what happened in Nancy, and the Court of Cassation ruled: this is not merely a breach of trust, it is an unlawful taking of interests.

This decision of 30 January 2013 (n° 11-89.224) answers a question that any owner or relative of a vulnerable person may ask: who is considered 'entrusted with a public service mission' and therefore subject to strict rules of impartiality? The answer is broad: any person who performs acts for the general interest, even without being a civil servant or having decision-making power. In other words, a director of an association responsible for the protection of adults is as strictly controlled as an elected official or a public agent.

In short, if you are a property owner in Mantes-la-Jolie or Plaisir, and you entrust the management of a property to a third party (association, managing agent, agent), that person cannot use it to further their personal interests or those of their relatives. The decision we will analyse perfectly illustrates this principle, with concrete consequences for real estate professionals and individuals.

The facts: a story that happens every day

In 2004, the association Abiepa was appointed by the tribunal d'instance of Nancy to manage judicial protection measures for several protected adults (guardianship, curatorship). Its de facto director, Mr X, was not officially the president, but he made all important decisions. He had close ties with the company GH Construction, of which he was a regular customer and in which he had personal interests.

Mr X then decided to use GH Construction to carry out works at the association's headquarters and for the maintenance of housing belonging to the protected adults. Problem: these works were over-invoiced, sometimes even fictitious. Worse, Mr X had the association pay a computer technician who was actually an employee of GH Construction. The misappropriated funds were used to finance personal benefits for Mr X and his entourage.

The facts were discovered during an inspection by the Direction départementale de la cohésion sociale. The association Abiepa filed a complaint. Mr X was prosecuted for breach of trust (misappropriation of funds entrusted to him) and unlawful taking of interests (taking a personal interest in an operation for which he was responsible). The Nancy Court of Appeal found him guilty on 24 November 2011. Mr X appealed to the Court of Cassation, arguing that he was not a public agent and had no decision-making power on behalf of the State. The Court of Cassation dismissed his appeal on 30 January 2013.

The reasoning of the court — explained

The heart of the dispute concerns Article 432-12 of the Criminal Code, which punishes unlawful taking of interests. This provision targets 'any person entrusted with a public service mission' who takes an interest in an operation for which they are responsible. But what is a 'public service mission'? The Court of Cassation gives a very broad definition: any person who, directly or indirectly, performs acts aimed at satisfying the general interest is entrusted with a public service mission. It does not matter that they have no decision-making power on behalf of the public authority (the State, the region, the municipality).

Applied to our case: the association Abiepa manages the protection of adults, a mission of general interest entrusted by the State. Mr X, as de facto director, participates in this mission. By using GH Construction for over-invoiced works, he took a personal interest (his ties with the company) in an operation for which he was responsible (the management of the association's funds and those of the protected adults). He is therefore guilty of unlawful taking of interests, in addition to breach of trust.

What few people know is that this decision confirms a jurisprudential trend that began in the 2000s. The courts are gradually extending the classification of 'public service mission' to associations, delegates of public services, and even certain professionals such as managing agents of co-ownerships when they manage funds on behalf of a local authority. In other words, if a managing agent in Plaisir manages a building owned by a municipality, they could be considered as entrusted with a public service mission and therefore subject to Article 432-12.

What this changes for you — concretely

For landlord owners: If you entrust the management of your properties to an association or an agent, they cannot favour their own interests (for example, by using their brother-in-law's company for repairs at an inflated price). If you suspect such behaviour, you can file a complaint for unlawful taking of interests, even if the manager is not a civil servant. In Mantes-la-Jolie, a landlord obtained the conviction of an association that charged excessive management fees while entrusting maintenance to a company linked to its president.

For protected adults and their relatives: You must be vigilant about the use of funds. Guardianship associations are subject to controls, but it is essential to demand supporting documents for each expense. If you notice anomalies (invoices without work, over-invoiced services), contact the guardianship judge or file a complaint. The Court of Cassation decision gives you a strong argument: the association director can be prosecuted for unlawful taking of interests, which increases their criminal liability.

For real estate professionals (agents, managing agents, property administrators): Be careful if you manage properties belonging to vulnerable persons or local authorities. You could be considered as entrusted with a public service mission. This means you cannot take an interest in the operations you manage, under penalty of criminal prosecution. For example, an estate agent who sells a protected adult's property at an undervalued price to their cousin could be prosecuted for unlawful taking of interests. The penalties can be up to 5 years' imprisonment and a fine of €500,000.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Require competitive quotes: For any works exceeding €1,500, ask for at least three quotes and keep them. If the manager refuses, it is a warning sign.
• Check for conflicts of interest: Before signing a management mandate, ask the manager for a sworn declaration stating that they have no personal ties with potential service providers. In Plaisir, a managing agent was dismissed after a co-owner discovered that the agent's brother was the only plumber called for emergencies.
• Monitor accounts: For protected adults, the guardianship judge may require an annual management report. Do not hesitate to ask for a detailed statement of all expenses with corresponding invoices. You have the right to challenge any unjustified expense.
• Report anomalies to the authorities: If in doubt, send a letter to the public prosecutor or the guardianship judge. You can also contact the Direction départementale de la cohésion sociale (DDCS). Do not stay alone: a report can trigger an investigation.

Further reading: related case law and developments

This decision is part of a line of rulings that broaden the notion of public service. For example, in a decision of 24 October 2000 (n° 99-85.435), the Court of Cassation already held that the manager of a private company operating a public service (school transport) was liable for unlawful taking of interests. More recently, in 2018, it extended this classification to the president of a sports federation delegated with a public service.

The trend is clear: the courts want to protect the general interest by sanctioning any conflict of interest, regardless of the status of the person involved. For real estate, this means that property managers acting on behalf of vulnerable persons (protected adults, elderly persons, etc.) must be extra cautious. The boundary between private management and public service mission is becoming blurred, and prevention is better than cure.

Key points to remember

• What is unlawful taking of interests? It is the act of a person entrusted with a public service mission taking a personal interest in an operation for which they are responsible. Example: an association director invoicing fictitious works through a company they control.
• Who is concerned? Any person who participates in a mission of general interest, even without public decision-making power. This includes guardianship associations, managing agents of co-ownerships managing public assets, and judicial agents.
• What are the risks? Up to 5 years' imprisonment and a fine of €500,000, plus a ban on exercising a profession related to the mission.
• What to do if you suspect? Gather evidence (invoices, quotes, testimonies) and send a report to the public prosecutor or the guardianship judge. You can also consult a specialised lawyer.
• Can I act as an owner? Yes, if you believe the manager of your property (association, managing agent) has favoured their interests. You can file a complaint for breach of trust and unlawful taking of interests.

Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of proceedings — and often much more. Book an appointment →