The Criminal Route Against a Bad-Faith Debtor in France

When non-payment of a debt becomes a criminal offence

Under French law, failing to pay an invoice is, in the vast majority of cases, a purely civil matter. A supplier who is owed money sues in the civil or commercial court, obtains a judgment and enforces it against the debtor's assets. The debtor who cannot pay is unfortunate, not criminal, and the courts will not treat ordinary commercial default as a wrong deserving punishment. Before considering a criminal complaint against a debtor in France, a creditor must understand that non-payment on its own is never enough.

The picture changes when the debtor's conduct is not merely a broken promise to pay but active dishonesty. If the debtor obtained the goods or services through deception, misappropriated property that was entrusted to them, or deliberately organised their own insolvency to defeat the creditor, the behaviour may amount to a criminal offence. In those situations French criminal law gives the creditor an additional weapon, because the same facts can be pursued both as a debt and as a crime.

The distinction matters because the two routes prove different things. A civil claim proves that a sum is due and unpaid. A criminal prosecution proves that an offence was committed, which requires evidence of a wrongful act and of the debtor's fraudulent state of mind. A creditor who confuses the two — who treats a stubborn but solvent debtor as a criminal — will not only fail but may expose themselves to a counterclaim, as we explain below.

The offences behind a criminal complaint against a debtor

Three offences account for most cases in which a creditor legitimately turns to the criminal courts. Each is defined in the Criminal Code and each requires proof of intent, but they target different kinds of dishonesty. Identifying which offence, if any, fits your facts is the first analytical step of any criminal complaint against a debtor in France.

Fraud — escroquerie (Article 313-1)

Fraud, or escroquerie under Article 313-1 of the Criminal Code, is committed where a person obtains money, goods or a service by deceptive means — a false name, a false capacity, or fraudulent manoeuvres — that induce the victim to hand something over. A debtor who orders and takes delivery of goods using a company they know to be worthless, or who pays with a forged bill of exchange or a document they know to be false, may be guilty of fraud rather than simple non-payment. The dishonesty exists at the moment of contracting: the debtor never intended to pay and used a trick to obtain the supply.

Breach of trust — abus de confiance (Article 314-1)

Breach of trust, or abus de confiance under Article 314-1 of the Criminal Code, punishes a person who misappropriates funds, goods or property that were handed to them on terms that they use them for a particular purpose or return them. This offence is relevant where the debtor received something on a fiduciary basis — money to be passed on, goods held on deposit or under retention of title, sums collected on the creditor's behalf — and diverted it to their own use. Unlike fraud, the debtor obtained the property lawfully; the wrong lies in what they did with it afterwards.

Fraudulent organisation of insolvency (Article 314-7)

Article 314-7 of the Criminal Code punishes a debtor who organises or aggravates their own insolvency in order to escape a financial obligation, whether the obligation results from a court decision or is likely to. Typical conduct includes hiding or disposing of assets, transferring property to relatives or connected companies at an undervalue, or otherwise emptying the estate so that the creditor cannot recover. This offence is the criminal counterpart to the civil action to set aside fraudulent transfers, and it is the one most directly aimed at the deliberately evasive debtor.

How to bring a criminal complaint against a debtor in France

Once you are satisfied that the facts may amount to an offence, French procedure offers three ways to set the criminal process in motion. They differ in cost, speed and in how much control the creditor keeps over the case. Choosing the right one is a matter of tactics and of the strength of your evidence.

The simplest route is a complaint to the public prosecutor. It costs nothing and does not require a lawyer, but the prosecutor is free to close the file, in which case the creditor has only a limited right of review before a senior prosecutor who may reject it. The second route, a complaint with a civil-party petition before an investigating judge, forces an investigation but is only available once the prosecutor has declined to act or three months have passed since the initial complaint. A company using this route must file its balance sheet and profit-and-loss account, and the investigating judge will usually require a deposit. The third route, the direct summons or citation directe, takes the debtor straight before the criminal court.

The criminal route compared with the civil route

The attraction of the criminal route is psychological and practical. The threat of a prosecution, a criminal record and a possible prison sentence can move a debtor who has shrugged off civil demands. A criminal investigation also gives access to investigative powers — searches, questioning, banking enquiries — that a private creditor could never deploy alone, which can be decisive where a debtor has hidden assets.

The drawbacks are equally real. A criminal case is often slower and more uncertain than a civil claim, because the creditor must prove an offence and not merely an unpaid debt. The damages awarded by a criminal court to a civil party are frequently lower than the sums a commercial court would order, and the outcome depends on the prosecutor's and the court's assessment of intent. For a solvent debtor who simply refuses to pay, the civil route — a judgment followed by enforcing a judgment and seizures — is usually faster and more rewarding.

In practice the two routes are not mutually exclusive. A creditor can pursue the debt in the commercial court while a criminal complaint runs in parallel, and the civil-party mechanism lets the criminal court award compensation for the loss the offence caused. The choice is one of tactics: the criminal route is a tool for genuine dishonesty, not a shortcut for collecting an ordinary debt.

The standard of proof and the need for intent

Every offence behind a criminal complaint against a debtor in France requires a mental element — a fraudulent or dishonest intent. This is the single most important obstacle for a creditor, and it is what separates a criminal case from a civil one. Fraud under Article 313-1 requires that the debtor deployed a deception in order to obtain the supply; breach of trust under Article 314-1 requires that the debtor knew the property was entrusted for a defined purpose and diverted it anyway; the offence under Article 314-7 requires that the debtor deliberately organised their insolvency to defeat the creditor.

Proving intent is demanding. A debtor who ran into difficulty after contracting in good faith has committed no offence, however large the debt. The creditor must therefore point to facts from which dishonesty at the relevant moment can be inferred — false documents, a company with no substance created to take the order, assets transferred to relatives on the eve of enforcement, or accounts that show the debtor could pay but chose not to. Suspicion is not proof, and the criminal court will resolve doubt in the debtor's favour.

The risk of a malicious-accusation counterclaim

The criminal route is not risk-free for the creditor. A debtor who is acquitted may turn on the accuser, and French law gives them the means to do so. Where a creditor uses a direct summons to bring the debtor before the criminal court and the court acquits, it may order the creditor, as the party who launched the case, to pay a civil fine of up to 15,000 euros if it finds that the summons was abusive or brought to delay. The same exposure applies before the police court for minor offences.

Beyond that fine, a debtor who has been wrongly accused can bring their own proceedings for malicious prosecution or for the harm to their reputation, seeking damages for a complaint made recklessly or in bad faith. A company whose commercial standing is damaged by a baseless criminal accusation may recover substantial compensation. This is why the criminal route should never be used as a bluff or as leverage in what is really a commercial dispute.

When the criminal route against a debtor is justified

The criminal route earns its place in a narrow set of situations. The first is where the debtor obtained the supply by deception from the outset — a phantom company, a false identity, a forged instrument of payment — so that fraud under Article 313-1 is in play. The second is where the debtor was entrusted with money or goods and misappropriated them, engaging breach of trust under Article 314-1. The third is where a debtor who owes a judgment debt, or is about to, strips their assets to frustrate recovery, which brings Article 314-7 into view.

In each of these cases the civil route alone may leave the creditor with a worthless judgment against an empty shell, while the criminal process can both punish the conduct and, through investigative powers, uncover the assets or the individuals behind the scheme. The criminal court can also pierce the comfort of limited liability by prosecuting the director personally, which is often the real target where a company has been used as a vehicle for fraud.

A practical checklist before you file a criminal complaint

Before committing to the criminal courts, work through a short checklist with your lawyer. It will tell you whether you have a criminal case or an ordinary debt, and which of the three procedural routes suits your evidence and your objectives. Taking these steps in order protects you from the counterclaim risks discussed above.

• Confirm the facts fit a specific offence — fraud, breach of trust or fraudulent organisation of insolvency — and not merely late payment.
• Assess whether you can prove the debtor's dishonest intent at the relevant moment, with documents and not suspicion.
• Gather and preserve the evidence: contract, orders, invoices, delivery notes, correspondence, and any proof of deception or asset transfers.
• Decide whether to keep the civil claim running in parallel to secure the debt itself.
• Choose the route: a free complaint to the prosecutor, a civil-party petition to force an investigation, or a direct summons where the case is complete.
• Take advice before issuing a citation directe, given the civil fine of up to 15,000 euros and the malicious-accusation risk if it fails.

Frequently asked questions about the criminal route against a debtor

Can I file a criminal complaint for non-payment in France?

Not for simple non-payment. A criminal complaint against a debtor in France succeeds only where the conduct amounts to a defined offence — fraud, breach of trust or the fraudulent organisation of insolvency — and where the debtor's dishonest intent can be proved. An unpaid invoice, without more, is a civil matter.

When is non-payment a crime?

When it is accompanied by dishonesty. Examples include obtaining goods through a worthless company or a false document (fraud under Article 313-1), misappropriating money or goods entrusted for a purpose (breach of trust under Article 314-1), or deliberately stripping assets to defeat a creditor (Article 314-7). The wrong lies in the deception or misappropriation, not in the default itself.

What is a citation directe?

A citation directe, or direct summons, lets a creditor bring the debtor straight before the criminal court without waiting for the prosecutor to act. It is quick but demanding: you must already hold all the evidence of the offence, and if the summons is found abusive or dilatory the court can fine you up to 15,000 euros. It should be used with a lawyer.

Is the criminal route better than the civil route?

Not usually. The criminal route can pressure a dishonest debtor and unlock investigative powers, but it is often slower and more uncertain, and the damages awarded to a civil party are frequently lower than a commercial court would order. For a solvent debtor who simply refuses to pay, the civil route is normally faster and more rewarding.

What is the fraudulent organisation of insolvency?

Under Article 314-7 of the Criminal Code, it is the offence of organising or aggravating your own insolvency to escape a financial obligation — for instance by hiding assets or transferring property to relatives at an undervalue. It is the criminal counterpart to the civil action against fraudulent transfers and targets the deliberately evasive debtor.

Do I need a lawyer to file a criminal complaint?

A plain complaint to the prosecutor is free and needs no lawyer. But a complaint with a civil-party petition and, in particular, a direct summons are formal and carry real risks, so a lawyer should handle them. Foreign creditors should act through French counsel because the procedure is conducted in French.

Can I pursue the debt and the crime at the same time?

Yes. A civil or commercial claim for the debt can run in parallel with a criminal complaint, and by joining the criminal case as a civil party (partie civile) you can also claim damages for the loss the offence caused. The choice is tactical: use the criminal route for genuine dishonesty, not to collect an ordinary debt.

How our French lawyers help with the criminal route against a debtor

Petroff Avocats advises creditors and debtors on both sides of this question. For creditors, we assess whether the facts amount to fraud, breach of trust or the fraudulent organisation of insolvency, build the evidence of intent, and choose between a complaint to the prosecutor, a civil-party petition and a direct summons — while keeping the civil recovery on track. For debtors facing a criminal complaint, we test whether the accusation truly discloses an offence and, where it does not, pursue the abusive-summons fine and a malicious-accusation claim. In every case we weigh the criminal route against the faster civil options so that our clients pursue the path most likely to recover their money.

This article is for general information only. It does not constitute legal advice, and the criminal and civil rules summarised here apply differently to each set of facts. Contact our French lawyers for advice on your situation.