Key points
- Issue: An SME and its director were being sued for paying approximately €36,000 to a shell company set up to syphon off cash.
- Decision: the court ruled that the invoices and explanations provided established that the services had actually been rendered.
- Outcome: the director and his company were acquitted, no penalty was imposed, and the sum of approximately €36,000 was returned to the company’s account.
An SME had paid a shell company: the court recognises that services were actually provided
On 31 October 2025, the Bobigny Criminal Court (case no. 16138000820) acquitted a client of Goldwin Avocats and his company. Both were facing a sentence for aggravated money laundering for having paid a shell company. The ruling is of interest to any director who has paid a dubious subcontractor.
A supplier with no employees at the centre of a cash-out network
The investigation targeted a ‘cash-out’ network, a scheme that converts bank transfers into cash handed over to payers. Around 13 million euros passed through three companies with no employees or premises before being sent on to destinations including Romania and Latvia. Their clients – genuine businesses – paid fake invoices in order to obtain cash.
In 2015, a small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) specialising in cabling paid around €36,000 to one of these companies for fibre reels and cable pullers. The public prosecutor’s office prosecuted the SME and its manager for aggravated money laundering, committed as part of an organised gang and on a habitual basis.
The manager, who has always denied the allegations, and his company were represented by Goldwin Avocats. The organisers of the scheme and several client companies were convicted.
Why the court did not impose any sentence on this SME
No sentence for aggravated money laundering was handed down: the defence provided the evidence to the contrary required by law. Article 324-1 of the Criminal Code punishes the act of assisting in placing, concealing or converting the proceeds of a criminal offence.Article 324-1-1 of the Criminal Code presumes such proceeds to be illicit where the transaction has no other justification than to conceal their origin.
Having failed to identify the underlying offence, the court applied this presumption, but then found it to have been rebutted:
| Facts of the case | The court’s findings |
|---|---|
| The supplier was paid | A shell company, with no employees or resources |
| The two invoices submitted | Material evidence deemed sufficient |
| Explanations given at the hearing | The reality of the services provided was confirmed. |
The court therefore acquitted the director and his company. Payment to a fictitious company gives rise to suspicion, not a conviction.
Penalty for aggravated money laundering: what the director and the company face
Aggravated money laundering is punishable by ten years’ imprisonment and a fine of €750,000. Article 324-2 of the Criminal Code covers offences committed habitually or as part of an organised gang. In this case, those convicted received sentences of up to eighteen months’ imprisonment, fines of €100,000, and disqualifications from holding management positions.
To avoid these penalties, follow these steps in order:
- Gather invoices, delivery notes and bank transfer statements.
- Identify the employees who witnessed the work being carried out.
- Present this evidence at the start of the investigation.
Article L. 8222-1 of the Labour Code also requires you to verify that the subcontractor declares its business activity and employees. Demand the Urssaf compliance certificate, not just an invoice.
We secured the acquittal of our client and his company. However, each situation must be analysed on a case-by-case basis.
Facing charges for paying a suspect supplier? Contact our business criminal law solicitors.
Related areas of expertise
Frequently asked questions about the sentence for aggravated money laundering
A fine of up to 3.75 million euros, which is five times the amount applicable to a natural person. Section 131-38 of the Criminal Code sets this multiplier, and Section 121-2 of the Criminal Code allows the company to be prosecuted alongside its director. It may also forfeit the funds in question through confiscation.
This is a provision that allows funds to be seized on the grounds that they are illicit without identifying the offence from which they originate. Section 324-1-1 of the Criminal Code applies this rule where the circumstances of the transaction have no justification other than to conceal the origin or beneficiary of the funds. It can be challenged: in such cases, the defendant must prove the economic reality of the transaction.
Yes, the court may order the return of the funds. In this case, it ordered that the sum corresponding to the disputed transfers, which had been credited to the company’s bank account, be returned to the company. This order for restitution is set out in the acquittal judgement itself.
Jonathan BELLAICHE
