CAMEROON Law and Practice Contributed by: Michel Aaron Feugueng, Ida Tchamde Feugueng and Yvette Kalieu Elongo, Maaron Law Firm
Misappropriation Misappropriation of public funds is an aggravat - ed offence under Article 184 Penal Code, carry - ing life imprisonment where the amount exceeds XAF500,000. Embezzlement by a corporate officer is governed by Article 891 of the AUSCGIE. The National Anti-Corruption Commission (CONAC), established by Decree No 2006/088, is empowered to investigate and refer cases of public corruption and misappropriation to the competent courts. 1.2 Causes of Action After Receipt of a Bribe Where a claimant’s agent has received a bribe, Cam - eroonian law provides the following cumulative caus - es of action. Criminal Complaint With Civil Party Status The claimant may file a complaint (“ plainte avec con- stitution de partie civile ”) before the examining mag - istrate ( “juge d’instruction” ) pursuant to Articles 134, 134-1 and 134-2 of the Penal Code and Article 61 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law No 2005/007 of 27 July 2005, hereinafter CPP). Constituting as a civil party triggers a criminal investigation and entitles the victim to claim full reparation before the criminal court without instituting separate civil proceedings (Article 357 CPP). Civil Action for Unjust Enrichment An action for unjust enrichment (“ enrichissement sans cause ”) lies under Articles 1371 et seq of the Civil Code (applicable in francophone regions) against the bribe-taker. The claimant must demonstrate that the agent was enriched at the claimant’s expense without lawful cause. Recovery extends to the full amount of the bribe and all identifiable consequential losses. Action for Breach of Mandate Under Articles 1984 to 2010 of the Civil Code, an agent owes a duty of loyalty to their principal. Receipt of a bribe constitutes a fundamental breach of the agency relationship. The principal may demand restitution of the bribe amount, rescission of any contract tainted by the bribe, and full damages (Article 1991 Civil Code). Corporate Action Under OHADA Where the agent is a corporate director or officer, the company may bring a derivative social action (“ action
sociale ”) under Article 165 of the AUSCGIE to recover losses flowing from the director’s breach of duty. Indi - vidual shareholders holding at least 1% of the share capital may bring an “ action sociale ut singuli ” on the company’s behalf (Article 166 AUSCGIE). Asset Recovery The claimant may simultaneously seek a conservatory attachment (“ saisie conservatoire ”) over the agent’s assets under Articles 54 to 61 of the OHADA Uniform Act on Simplified Recovery Procedures and Measures of Execution (AUPSRVE, revised 10 September 2015) to secure future enforcement of any damages award. 1.3 Claims Against Parties Who Assist or Facilitate Fraudulent Acts Criminal Liability of Accessories and Co-Perpetrators Under Articles 95 to 97 of the Penal Code, co-perpe - trators ( coauteurs ) and accessories ( complices ) who assist, facilitate or instigate a fraud are liable to the same penalties as the principal offender. A person who knowingly provides assistance, financing or pro - fessional services to a fraudster – including lawyers, accountants and bankers acting in bad faith – may be charged as an accessory under Article 97 of the Penal Code. The fraud victim may constitute as a civil party in the criminal proceedings against all accused persons, including accessories (Article 357 CPP), and recover damages from each jointly and severally. Civil Liability: Knowing Receipt and Dishonest Assistance Although Cameroonian civil law does not recog - nise the common law equitable doctrines of know - ing receipt or dishonest assistance as autonomous causes of action, equivalent protection is achieved through the civilian concepts of faute quasi-délictuelle under Article 1382 of the Civil Code and unjust enrich - ment under Articles 1371 et seq of the Civil Code. A third party who receives assets knowing them to be proceeds of fraud, or who provides professional assis - tance to a fraudster with knowledge of the fraud, may be held liable in tort for all losses caused and required to disgorge any benefit received. Bad-faith knowledge is presumed where the circumstances were such that a reasonable person would have made further enquir - ies.
66 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook