Saturday to Thursday, 9:00 am – 6:00 pm

Legal Insights

Misappropriation and Dissipation of Company Funds by a Director or Employee: Legal Liability and Methods of Proof

Financial Corruption and Economic Crimes

An unexpected inventory count, a review of bank transfers, or an examination of the accounting system may reveal a shortfall in company funds. The existence of a shortfall alone, however, does not establish a criminal offence: it may result from an accounting error, a financial irregularity, or conduct amounting to breach of trust. Proper legal characterisation depends on the person’s capacity, the nature of the transfer of possession of the funds, the powers granted to that person, and what the evidence reveals about the conduct and intent. This guide explains how to manage and prove such incidents without confusing criminal, employment, and civil liability.

I. When Does Dealing with Company Funds Become a Criminal Offence?

Breach of Trust and Dissipation Under Article 341 of the Penal Code

Article 341 of the Penal Code penalises the misappropriation, use, or dissipation of money or movable property delivered under one of the relationships of trust specified in the Article, to the detriment of the person entitled to it. It is necessary to prove that the property was delivered under a relationship transferring limited possession while preserving an obligation to return it or use it for a specified purpose, and that the accused dealt with it in a manner demonstrating criminal intent. The relationships of trust prescribed by the Article are distinct from the mere existence of an employment relationship or the holding of a managerial position: what matters is the true nature of the relationship and the fact of delivery, rather than the label the company gives to the document.

A director’s appropriation of money received for remittance to the company may constitute breach of trust, depending on the documents and the nature of the assignment. Conversely, discrepancies arising from an incorrect accounting entry or a commercial loss caused by a management decision do not automatically amount to the same offence. Likewise, a contractual breach or a delay in returning money is not, on its own, sufficient to establish an intention to appropriate it.

Misappropriation Without Prior Delivery and Accompanying Forgery

If delivery under a relationship of trust cannot be established, an alternative legal characterisation must be examined in light of the manner in which the money was obtained. Were fraudulent means used that satisfy the elements of fraud under Article 336? Were documents forged or knowingly used as forgeries? Or does the matter give rise only to civil or disciplinary liability? Conduct should not be characterised as the embezzlement of public funds merely because the property belongs to a private company. Offences involving public funds are subject to specific requirements concerning the nature of the funds and the capacity of the perpetrator.

II. Applicable Legal Framework

  • Penal Code No. 58 of 1937, as amended: In particular, Article 341 on breach of trust, Article 336 where the elements of fraud are present, and the provisions on forgery where the facts satisfy their constituent elements.
  • Civil Code No. 131 of 1948: The rules on contractual and tortious liability, particularly Article 163 on fault causing damage and Article 169 on joint and several liability where multiple persons are responsible for a harmful act.
  • Labour Law No. 14 of 2025: Provisions on investigations, penalties, temporary suspension, and dismissal applicable to employees within its scope, subject to verification of any transitional or special provisions if the incident predates its entry into force.
  • Companies Law No. 159 of 1981, as amended: Depending on the company’s legal form and the position of the director or board member, without assuming that all its provisions apply to every type of company.
  • Information Technology Crimes Law No. 175 of 2018: Particularly Article 11 and its Implementing Regulations concerning the evidential value of digital evidence where the technical requirements are satisfied.

III. Liability Depends on the Capacity of the Perpetrator

Employee and custodian of entrusted property: Receipt records, disbursement and remittance documents, settlement records, and actual authorities must be examined. Disciplinary, civil, and criminal liability may coexist where the conditions of each are independently satisfied. A criminal offence cannot be presumed merely because an employee has signed a custody register or a shortfall appears in an account for which the employee is responsible.

Executive director: A distinction must be drawn between funds received by the director on behalf of the company and the director’s authority to represent the company and lawfully dispose of its funds. Exceeding delegated authority or misusing powers may give rise to civil liability or accountability under special legislation, whereas a criminal charge requires proof of the elements of the particular offence.

Board member: Membership of the board does not, by itself, make a member liable for every financial transaction carried out by others. The member’s actual role, authority, knowledge, participation, and the applicable statutory provision must be examined. Joint and several liability for damages does not arise automatically from the presence of several board members; it depends on the relevant legal provision or their participation in causing the harm under the applicable rules.

IV. Investigation and Evidence Collection Plan

  • Securing documents: Issue internal preservation instructions preventing destruction or unauthorised alteration, without exceeding employees’ legal rights or disrupting the company’s essential operations.
  • Inventory and reconciliation: Establish the actual balance and compare it with the accounting records, disbursement and deposit authorisations, and transfers. Identify the period of the shortfall and the suspicious transactions, and explain potential discrepancies.
  • Tracing delivery and authority: Collect custody and handover records, employment and management contracts, powers of attorney, and the accounting system’s authority matrix. Identify who was authorised to execute or approve transactions.
  • Examining digital evidence: Preserve original copies and access and modification logs; record the time of extraction, the identity of the person performing it, and digital file hashes wherever possible. Engage a specialist when needed.
  • Impartial investigation: Hear the person concerned and witnesses, present the specific allegations and documents without coercion or any presumption of guilt, and document their responses and accounting explanations.

The investigation report should answer three distinct questions: Is there a genuine shortfall? Who carried out or authorised each transaction? Does the evidence establish conduct accompanied by an intention to misappropriate or dissipate the funds? An accounting report is a form of technical evidence to be weighed alongside other evidence; it is not a judicial finding that an offence has been committed.

Evidential Value of Bank Transfers and Digital Records

Article 11 of the Information Technology Crimes Law accords digital evidence the evidential value of physical criminal evidence where it satisfies the technical requirements prescribed by the Implementing Regulations. Accordingly, submitting a screenshot or a modifiable Excel file without documenting its source, the integrity of its extraction, and its attribution to the person under investigation is insufficient. The confidentiality of correspondence and data-protection rules must also be observed when accessing business email and devices.

V. Disciplinary Investigation and Suspension from Work

If the suspect is an employee subject to Labour Law No. 14 of 2025, the investigation safeguards under Articles 138, 141, and 142 must be respected, including notifying the employee of the alleged misconduct, hearing the employee’s defence, and recording the investigation procedures. Under Article 145, an employer may temporarily suspend an employee in the circumstances specified by law, by written decision, for no more than sixty days and on full pay. Applications for extensions and grievances are governed by Articles 146 and 147. Suspension must not be used as a penalty before the investigation has concluded.

Employment procedures must be kept distinct from the criminal complaint. Filing a complaint does not automatically permit dismissal; likewise, an acquittal may affect suspension and dismissal proceedings depending on the grounds for the acquittal and the binding effect of the matters determined. Where the applicable law so requires, an application for dismissal must be submitted to the competent Labour Court.

VI. Criminal Complaint and Recovery of Company Funds

Before filing a complaint, prepare a chronological dossier containing the inventory report, proof of delivery, account statements, results of technical examinations, statements of the persons concerned, and particulars of the loss. Established facts must be distinguished from inferences. The complaint should be submitted to the competent authority according to the nature of the alleged offence and the applicable jurisdiction; not every offence involving the assets of a private company falls within the jurisdiction of a single prosecuting authority.

A claim for compensation or restitution may be pursued through civil proceedings or a civil claim before the criminal court where permitted by law. Available precautionary measures, the conditions governing them, and the source of the power to order them should also be considered. A company does not itself have authority to freeze a suspect’s bank accounts or prohibit dealings with assets merely because a complaint has been filed. Nor does settlement or reconciliation have a uniform criminal-law effect: the statutory provisions governing the offence, the content of the agreement, and its effect on civil rights must all be considered.

VII. Common Risks That Weaken a Case

  • Confusing a commercial loss or accounting shortfall with criminal misappropriation, or deciding to make an accusation before reconciling balances and transactions.
  • Relying on admissions obtained under pressure or threat, or on electronic extracts of unknown origin.
  • Failing to establish that funds were in fact delivered under a relationship of trust or to identify who carried out each transaction.
  • Imposing a penalty or dismissal without complying with the Labour Law and disciplinary regulations, or exceeding the rules governing temporary suspension.
  • Overlooking damages claims and the applicable time limits, or accepting a release that does not identify the scope of the rights waived.

VIII. Preventive Controls to Protect Company Funds

Prevention begins with defined disbursement and transfer authorities, separation of the persons requesting, approving, and executing payments, periodic bank reconciliations, independent inventories of entrusted assets, and an audit trail of approvals and changes within the accounting system. Companies should adopt a confidential misconduct-reporting policy, a document-retention schedule, and an evidence-preservation protocol for use when serious suspicions arise, while observing data-protection requirements and employees’ rights.

IX. Considerations for Foreign Companies and Investors

When an incident is discovered within an Egyptian subsidiary or branch, the local investigation should be coordinated with the international group’s requirements without assuming that parent-company policies supersede Egyptian law. Cross-border transfers of employee data and documents, confidentiality of correspondence, the authority of the company’s representative to file a complaint or commence proceedings, and any application of foreign legislation with extraterritorial reach should be reviewed in light of the incident’s connection with the relevant jurisdictions.

When Should Specialist Legal Counsel or Local Counsel in Egypt Be Involved?

Legal involvement becomes important where employee and managerial liability may overlap, related-party transactions are involved, records may have been forged, or sensitive digital information may have been used, as well as before imposing a suspension or bringing a criminal complaint or civil action. Coordination between the lawyer and the forensic accounting expert helps produce a coherent evidentiary dossier without either professional replacing the other.

How Can Specialist Legal Support Help?

El Rouby Law Firm advises companies and investors on the legal characterisation of incidents involving missing or dissipated funds, the review of custody rules and delegated authorities, legal oversight of internal investigations, assessment of evidence and risks, preparation of appropriate complaints and legal proceedings, and pursuit of recovery measures under Egyptian law. The firm also supports foreign investors in its capacity as Local Counsel.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does a Shortfall in an Employee’s Entrusted Funds Establish Dissipation?

No. The source of the shortfall, the actual delivery of the money, the manner in which it was dealt with, and criminal intent must be examined, taking account of entries, authorisations, transfers, and the statements of the persons concerned.

Can a Company Suspend an Employee Immediately Upon Discovering Suspected Misappropriation?

Temporary suspension is permissible if one of the circumstances under Article 145 of Labour Law No. 14 of 2025 is established, by written decision and subject to the statutory limits on duration and pay, as well as the rules on grievances and extensions.

Can Email and ERP Records Be Relied Upon?

Yes, provided that the data was obtained lawfully and meets the applicable requirements relating to the integrity and attribution of the evidence and any mandatory technical standards, depending on the nature of the evidence and the applicable law.

Are Board Members Jointly and Severally Liable?

Not automatically. Individual or joint and several liability is determined according to each member’s role, the applicable statutory provision, and the conditions governing their participation in causing the harm.

Does a Claim for Damages Lapse When Criminal Proceedings End?

Not necessarily. The effect depends on the grounds on which the criminal proceedings ended, the binding effect of any judgments, the terms of any settlement or release, and the requirements and time limits applicable to the civil claim.

Legal and Official References

Misappropriation and Dissipation of Company Funds by a Director or Employee: Legal Liability and Methods of Proof

An unexpected inventory count, a review of bank transfers, or an examination of the accounting system may reveal a shortfall in company funds. The existence of a shortfall alone, however, does not establish a criminal offence: it may result from an accounting error, a financial irregularity, or conduct amounting to breach of trust. Proper legal characterisation depends on the person’s capacity, the nature of the transfer of possession of the funds, the powers granted to that person, and what the evidence reveals about the conduct and intent. This guide explains how to manage and prove such incidents without confusing criminal, employment, and civil liability.

I. When Does Dealing with Company Funds Become a Criminal Offence?

Breach of Trust and Dissipation Under Article 341 of the Penal Code

Article 341 of the Penal Code penalises the misappropriation, use, or dissipation of money or movable property delivered under one of the relationships of trust specified in the Article, to the detriment of the person entitled to it. It is necessary to prove that the property was delivered under a relationship transferring limited possession while preserving an obligation to return it or use it for a specified purpose, and that the accused dealt with it in a manner demonstrating criminal intent. The relationships of trust prescribed by the Article are distinct from the mere existence of an employment relationship or the holding of a managerial position: what matters is the true nature of the relationship and the fact of delivery, rather than the label the company gives to the document.

A director’s appropriation of money received for remittance to the company may constitute breach of trust, depending on the documents and the nature of the assignment. Conversely, discrepancies arising from an incorrect accounting entry or a commercial loss caused by a management decision do not automatically amount to the same offence. Likewise, a contractual breach or a delay in returning money is not, on its own, sufficient to establish an intention to appropriate it.

Misappropriation Without Prior Delivery and Accompanying Forgery

If delivery under a relationship of trust cannot be established, an alternative legal characterisation must be examined in light of the manner in which the money was obtained. Were fraudulent means used that satisfy the elements of fraud under Article 336? Were documents forged or knowingly used as forgeries? Or does the matter give rise only to civil or disciplinary liability? Conduct should not be characterised as the embezzlement of public funds merely because the property belongs to a private company. Offences involving public funds are subject to specific requirements concerning the nature of the funds and the capacity of the perpetrator.

II. Applicable Legal Framework

  • Penal Code No. 58 of 1937, as amended: In particular, Article 341 on breach of trust, Article 336 where the elements of fraud are present, and the provisions on forgery where the facts satisfy their constituent elements.
  • Civil Code No. 131 of 1948: The rules on contractual and tortious liability, particularly Article 163 on fault causing damage and Article 169 on joint and several liability where multiple persons are responsible for a harmful act.
  • Labour Law No. 14 of 2025: Provisions on investigations, penalties, temporary suspension, and dismissal applicable to employees within its scope, subject to verification of any transitional or special provisions if the incident predates its entry into force.
  • Companies Law No. 159 of 1981, as amended: Depending on the company’s legal form and the position of the director or board member, without assuming that all its provisions apply to every type of company.
  • Information Technology Crimes Law No. 175 of 2018: Particularly Article 11 and its Implementing Regulations concerning the evidential value of digital evidence where the technical requirements are satisfied.

III. Liability Depends on the Capacity of the Perpetrator

Employee and custodian of entrusted property: Receipt records, disbursement and remittance documents, settlement records, and actual authorities must be examined. Disciplinary, civil, and criminal liability may coexist where the conditions of each are independently satisfied. A criminal offence cannot be presumed merely because an employee has signed a custody register or a shortfall appears in an account for which the employee is responsible.

Executive director: A distinction must be drawn between funds received by the director on behalf of the company and the director’s authority to represent the company and lawfully dispose of its funds. Exceeding delegated authority or misusing powers may give rise to civil liability or accountability under special legislation, whereas a criminal charge requires proof of the elements of the particular offence.

Board member: Membership of the board does not, by itself, make a member liable for every financial transaction carried out by others. The member’s actual role, authority, knowledge, participation, and the applicable statutory provision must be examined. Joint and several liability for damages does not arise automatically from the presence of several board members; it depends on the relevant legal provision or their participation in causing the harm under the applicable rules.

IV. Investigation and Evidence Collection Plan

  • Securing documents: Issue internal preservation instructions preventing destruction or unauthorised alteration, without exceeding employees’ legal rights or disrupting the company’s essential operations.
  • Inventory and reconciliation: Establish the actual balance and compare it with the accounting records, disbursement and deposit authorisations, and transfers. Identify the period of the shortfall and the suspicious transactions, and explain potential discrepancies.
  • Tracing delivery and authority: Collect custody and handover records, employment and management contracts, powers of attorney, and the accounting system’s authority matrix. Identify who was authorised to execute or approve transactions.
  • Examining digital evidence: Preserve original copies and access and modification logs; record the time of extraction, the identity of the person performing it, and digital file hashes wherever possible. Engage a specialist when needed.
  • Impartial investigation: Hear the person concerned and witnesses, present the specific allegations and documents without coercion or any presumption of guilt, and document their responses and accounting explanations.

The investigation report should answer three distinct questions: Is there a genuine shortfall? Who carried out or authorised each transaction? Does the evidence establish conduct accompanied by an intention to misappropriate or dissipate the funds? An accounting report is a form of technical evidence to be weighed alongside other evidence; it is not a judicial finding that an offence has been committed.

Evidential Value of Bank Transfers and Digital Records

Article 11 of the Information Technology Crimes Law accords digital evidence the evidential value of physical criminal evidence where it satisfies the technical requirements prescribed by the Implementing Regulations. Accordingly, submitting a screenshot or a modifiable Excel file without documenting its source, the integrity of its extraction, and its attribution to the person under investigation is insufficient. The confidentiality of correspondence and data-protection rules must also be observed when accessing business email and devices.

V. Disciplinary Investigation and Suspension from Work

If the suspect is an employee subject to Labour Law No. 14 of 2025, the investigation safeguards under Articles 138, 141, and 142 must be respected, including notifying the employee of the alleged misconduct, hearing the employee’s defence, and recording the investigation procedures. Under Article 145, an employer may temporarily suspend an employee in the circumstances specified by law, by written decision, for no more than sixty days and on full pay. Applications for extensions and grievances are governed by Articles 146 and 147. Suspension must not be used as a penalty before the investigation has concluded.

Employment procedures must be kept distinct from the criminal complaint. Filing a complaint does not automatically permit dismissal; likewise, an acquittal may affect suspension and dismissal proceedings depending on the grounds for the acquittal and the binding effect of the matters determined. Where the applicable law so requires, an application for dismissal must be submitted to the competent Labour Court.

VI. Criminal Complaint and Recovery of Company Funds

Before filing a complaint, prepare a chronological dossier containing the inventory report, proof of delivery, account statements, results of technical examinations, statements of the persons concerned, and particulars of the loss. Established facts must be distinguished from inferences. The complaint should be submitted to the competent authority according to the nature of the alleged offence and the applicable jurisdiction; not every offence involving the assets of a private company falls within the jurisdiction of a single prosecuting authority.

A claim for compensation or restitution may be pursued through civil proceedings or a civil claim before the criminal court where permitted by law. Available precautionary measures, the conditions governing them, and the source of the power to order them should also be considered. A company does not itself have authority to freeze a suspect’s bank accounts or prohibit dealings with assets merely because a complaint has been filed. Nor does settlement or reconciliation have a uniform criminal-law effect: the statutory provisions governing the offence, the content of the agreement, and its effect on civil rights must all be considered.

VII. Common Risks That Weaken a Case

  • Confusing a commercial loss or accounting shortfall with criminal misappropriation, or deciding to make an accusation before reconciling balances and transactions.
  • Relying on admissions obtained under pressure or threat, or on electronic extracts of unknown origin.
  • Failing to establish that funds were in fact delivered under a relationship of trust or to identify who carried out each transaction.
  • Imposing a penalty or dismissal without complying with the Labour Law and disciplinary regulations, or exceeding the rules governing temporary suspension.
  • Overlooking damages claims and the applicable time limits, or accepting a release that does not identify the scope of the rights waived.

VIII. Preventive Controls to Protect Company Funds

Prevention begins with defined disbursement and transfer authorities, separation of the persons requesting, approving, and executing payments, periodic bank reconciliations, independent inventories of entrusted assets, and an audit trail of approvals and changes within the accounting system. Companies should adopt a confidential misconduct-reporting policy, a document-retention schedule, and an evidence-preservation protocol for use when serious suspicions arise, while observing data-protection requirements and employees’ rights.

IX. Considerations for Foreign Companies and Investors

When an incident is discovered within an Egyptian subsidiary or branch, the local investigation should be coordinated with the international group’s requirements without assuming that parent-company policies supersede Egyptian law. Cross-border transfers of employee data and documents, confidentiality of correspondence, the authority of the company’s representative to file a complaint or commence proceedings, and any application of foreign legislation with extraterritorial reach should be reviewed in light of the incident’s connection with the relevant jurisdictions.

When Should Specialist Legal Counsel or Local Counsel in Egypt Be Involved?

Legal involvement becomes important where employee and managerial liability may overlap, related-party transactions are involved, records may have been forged, or sensitive digital information may have been used, as well as before imposing a suspension or bringing a criminal complaint or civil action. Coordination between the lawyer and the forensic accounting expert helps produce a coherent evidentiary dossier without either professional replacing the other.

How Can Specialist Legal Support Help?

El Rouby Law Firm advises companies and investors on the legal characterisation of incidents involving missing or dissipated funds, the review of custody rules and delegated authorities, legal oversight of internal investigations, assessment of evidence and risks, preparation of appropriate complaints and legal proceedings, and pursuit of recovery measures under Egyptian law. The firm also supports foreign investors in its capacity as Local Counsel.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does a Shortfall in an Employee’s Entrusted Funds Establish Dissipation?

No. The source of the shortfall, the actual delivery of the money, the manner in which it was dealt with, and criminal intent must be examined, taking account of entries, authorisations, transfers, and the statements of the persons concerned.

Can a Company Suspend an Employee Immediately Upon Discovering Suspected Misappropriation?

Temporary suspension is permissible if one of the circumstances under Article 145 of Labour Law No. 14 of 2025 is established, by written decision and subject to the statutory limits on duration and pay, as well as the rules on grievances and extensions.

Can Email and ERP Records Be Relied Upon?

Yes, provided that the data was obtained lawfully and meets the applicable requirements relating to the integrity and attribution of the evidence and any mandatory technical standards, depending on the nature of the evidence and the applicable law.

Are Board Members Jointly and Severally Liable?

Not automatically. Individual or joint and several liability is determined according to each member’s role, the applicable statutory provision, and the conditions governing their participation in causing the harm.

Does a Claim for Damages Lapse When Criminal Proceedings End?

Not necessarily. The effect depends on the grounds on which the criminal proceedings ended, the binding effect of any judgments, the terms of any settlement or release, and the requirements and time limits applicable to the civil claim.

Legal and Official References

Back to all insights Contact Our Team