Fraud vs Abuse of Trust: Key Differences

Extract

[...] For abuse of trust, the prescription starts on the day when offense appeared and could be observed under conditions allowing the initiation or exercise of this action" under the law number 2017-247 of February 27, 2017. Finally, in both cases, Aggravating circumstances are provided for, but they differ depending on the offense. For example, for abuse of trust, the legislator provides for organized gang and the quality of judicial mandatary or public officer. For swindling, it is notably aggravated the fact of prejudicing a vulnerable person. [...]

[...] The economic and financial stakes are unprecedented. [...]

[...] We can therefore say that the fundamental difference between the two crimes is the existence or not of an initial fraud committed by the perpetrator. On the one hand, for the abuse of trust, there is no initial fraud. In fact, the true owner of the property possesses it. In the context of delivery by another person, this delivery must be both voluntary and precarious. On the other hand, for the fraud, the perpetrator of the facts gives the impression that he is the owner of the property, but he is not, he uses fraudulent maneuvers. [...]

[...] It will then be necessary to answer the question previously asked: The study of the risks of confusion between fraud and abuse of trust due to their similarity allows for a closer look at the existing differences between these two offenses (II). Fraud and abuse of trust: risks of confusion due to their similarity The crimes of fraud and abuse of trust risk being confused on the one hand because they aim to protect each person's property and on the other hand because their repressive framework is identical Two offenses aimed at protecting each person's property Fraud is defined in Article 313-1 of the Criminal Code. [...]

[...] The criminal chamber of the Court of Cassation has notably been pedagogical in its decision of 14 November 2000 (n° 99-84.522) and of the 3 July 1997 (n° 96-85.144) in developing its position. For the fraud, the fundamental material element is based on the fraudulent maneuvers (or abuse of quality / false name), the deceptive nature of these means and the transfer of funds resulting from the maneuvers. It must result in a prejudice to the victim. The moral element is identical to that of abuse of trust. Note, however, that mere negligence or the absence of precautions taken in no way characterizes the fraudulent intent. [...]