Breach of Trust in Morocco: Procedure and Penalties 2026

A breach of trust complaint in Morocco is based on Article 547 of the Criminal Code, enacted by Dahir No. 1-59-413 of 26 November 1962 and read in its consolidated version. This provision punishes anyone who, dishonestly and to the detriment of another, misappropriates or dissipates instruments, funds, goods, notes, receipts or documents entrusted on condition that they be returned or used for a specified purpose. In practical terms, the entrustment is initially voluntary. The criminal conduct arises later, when the holder appropriates, sells, spends or retains the property contrary to the agreement.

Prior entrustment is the central element of the offence. If the property was taken without the holder’s consent, classification as theft may be more appropriate. If the money was obtained through deception devised before payment, fraud should be considered. To establish breach of trust, the public prosecutor’s office looks for the agreed purpose and the subsequent act incompatible with it. Funds entrusted to pay a supplier and then transferred to the agent’s personal account illustrate this reasoning, without prejudging the court’s decision.

Article 547 should not be reduced to a rigid list of contracts. It may apply to property entrusted in connection with an agency, a deposit, cash management or the temporary use of a vehicle. A money loan calls for greater caution: the borrower ordinarily becomes the owner of the funds received and must repay an equivalent amount. Their insolvency or delay therefore remains, in principle, a civil dispute where the case discloses no separate misappropriation, no mandatory allocation of the funds and no criminally proven dishonesty.

The entrusted property is generally movable property: money, goods, a vehicle or a document producing legal effects. In a real estate transaction, the offence may concern entrusted funds, rent, title deeds or documents rather than the property itself. Dishonesty must always be proven. An honest accounting error, an accidental loss or an objective inability to return the property does not automatically constitute the offence. The judge assesses the explanations, the timeline and the actions taken after the request for return.

The legal basis must be clearly stated: the facts must fall within the scope of Article 547. The principle of legality prohibits a conviction for conduct that does not correspond to an offence defined by law. The case must therefore identify the entrusted property and the accepted obligation to return it or use it as agreed. A credit sale, participation in a risky investment or an ordinary commercial debt is insufficient, even if the victim suffers a genuine financial loss.

The material element includes the entrustment and the subsequent act of misappropriation or dissipation. Entrustment may be established by a signed document, a receipt or a banking record linked to specific instructions. Misappropriation may be demonstrated by resale of the property, a transfer to a personal account or use unrelated to the mandate. A refusal to return the property may support the allegation where it demonstrates an intention to appropriate it, but it must be considered in context.

The mental element is dishonesty. Mere delay does not allow it to be presumed. Judges examine the explanations provided, concealment of the property, alteration of documents, personal withdrawals and promises to return the property contradicted by subsequent actions. A formal notice that remains unanswered may shed light on such conduct, but it does not create the offence. Conversely, a response documenting an accidental loss or authorised use must be considered fairly.

In criminal matters, Article 286 of the Code of Criminal Procedure generally establishes the admissibility of all forms of evidence and assessment by the judge according to their personal conviction, unless otherwise provided by law. Caution is required where the accusation primarily depends on proof of a civil legal transaction. Article 443 of the Code of Obligations and Contracts generally requires written evidence for transactions exceeding 10,000 DH, subject to statutory exceptions. The civil and criminal rules must then be applied together, without assuming that a simple screenshot always replaces the required written evidence.

The most accessible route is a complaint addressed to the King's Public Prosecutor at the competent Court of First Instance. It may be filed directly with the public prosecutor's office or with a judicial police unit or the Royal Gendarmerie. Filing a simple complaint is normally not subject to any court fee. The document must set out the dated facts, the known identity of the perpetrator, the circumstances in which the property was entrusted and the alleged misappropriation. A receipt or registration number can then be used to follow up on the case in person or, where the service is available, through the Mahakim portal.

Territorial jurisdiction depends in particular on the place where the offence was committed, the suspected person's residence or the place of their arrest, in accordance with the rules of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A transaction carried out across several cities or through online accounts can make this choice difficult. The public prosecutor may order an investigation, bring a prosecution or close the case if the evidence is insufficient or the facts appear to be purely civil. The police and gendarmerie forward their official reports to the public prosecutor's office; they do not themselves determine guilt.

A complaint with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party is submitted to the investigating judge under the conditions laid down in Articles 92 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure, established by Law No. 22-01. Article 95 allows the judge to set a deposit, particularly to secure payment of a possible civil fine in the event of an abusive complaint. There is no published national scale. According to court registry practice in 2025-2026, the amount may range from a few hundred to several thousand dirhams, but only the decision issued in the case is authoritative.

A direct summons before the criminal court may be appropriate when the perpetrator has been identified and the evidence allows the case to be heard immediately. It requires obtaining a hearing date from the court registry and then having the summons duly served by a judicial officer. Service costs observed in 2025-2026 are often around 200 to 800 DH, depending on distance and the steps required; the exact amount must be requested from the professional. This route is less suitable when an expert assessment or banking investigations are required.

In 2026, Article 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sets the limitation period for public prosecution of offences at four full Gregorian years. This Code results from Law No. 22-01, promulgated by Dahir No. 1-02-255 of 3 October 2002, and subsequently amended, in particular by Law No. 35-11 promulgated in 2011. This reform explains why some older guidance still refers to five years. The starting point and events that interrupt the limitation period must be verified on a case-by-case basis; private negotiations do not automatically interrupt it.

A dispute between traders or partners does not transfer the offence to the Commercial Court. Article 5 of Law No. 53-95 assigns certain civil and commercial disputes to the commercial courts, but not the criminal trial of breach of trust. Criminal proceedings remain before the competent criminal court, generally the Court of First Instance. At the same time, a commercial claim for payment, restitution or an account may fall within the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court. Both proceedings must be coordinated to avoid contradictory claims.

In the consolidated version of the Criminal Code available on official portals in 2026, Article 547 provides for imprisonment from six months to three years and a fine of 200 to 2,000 DH. This historical amount remains the amount shown in the consolidated text consulted, but only the Official Gazette is authoritative. Before publication, or in relation to recent facts, bo.sgg.gov.ma must be checked to ensure that no amending law has increased the fine or changed the applicable regime. The criminal law in force on the date of the facts and the rules governing the more lenient law must also be examined.

Aggravating circumstances must be linked to the corresponding statutory provision. Article 548 applies to certain persons to whom property has been entrusted because they hold specific positions of trust, particularly when they act in the performance of those duties. Article 549 applies in particular to certain situations involving appeals to the public for the purpose of obtaining funds or securities. Employees, agents or officers therefore do not automatically fall within the scope of these articles. The court verifies the person's exact capacity and the circumstances in which the property was entrusted.

The victim may bring a civil claim before the criminal court in accordance with Articles 7 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The victim must establish personal, direct and certain loss. The amount claimed must correspond to the value of the property or the sums misappropriated, increased only by substantiated losses connected with the offence. Compensation for non-material harm may be claimed when it is explained. The court retains its discretion and may reduce or reject an unproven amount.

Precautionary attachment may be requested when a claim appears well-founded and its recovery is at risk. Its civil-law regime arises in particular from Articles 452 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure established by Dahir enacting Law No. 1-74-447 of 28 September 1974. The application falls within the jurisdiction of the president of the competent court, depending on the nature of the dispute and the property concerned. To avoid an isolated or incomplete reference, the entire regime governing precautionary attachments must be considered rather than linking the measure solely to the article concerning ex parte orders.

Attachment of an account, movable property or a right in immovable property is not subject to the same formalities. For registered property, information held by the ANCFCC and the entries on the land title must be checked. A criminal complaint does not automatically freeze the assets of the person concerned. An unjustified measure may incur the liability of the person who requested it. The judge assesses the evidence provided, and the judicial officer enforces only valid authorisation or a valid enforceable instrument.

After an enforceable conviction awarding damages, the victim obtains the required copy from the court registry and generally has the decision served. The judicial officer may then initiate the authorised enforcement measures. Costs depend on the steps taken, travel and the amounts recovered; a quotation or written estimate should be requested in 2026. A judgment does not guarantee payment if no attachable asset is identified, which is why legally available precautionary measures should be considered sufficiently early.