MONACO Law and Practice Contributed by: Donald Manasse, Donald Manasse Law Offices
to maintain the same standards in addition to the standards set out by their own Bars. French lawyers, for example, swear an oath to exercise the profession with “dignity, conscience, inde - pendence, probity and humanity” . There are no known or published cases of Monaco law - yers being sanctioned or disciplined for failing to respect these standards or any other viola - tions, although malpractice suits are not entirely unknown. It is accepted practice that a defendant in a crim - inal case will seek to settle with a civil complain - ant, who will then withdraw the complaint. This will not end the criminal investigation, nor the possibility of the defendant being condemned, but will prevent the civil party from receiving damages or participating in the trial. Certain members of the Monaco Bar will file criminal complaints as a means of pressuring defendants or civil party victims in criminal cases. While this strategy is disliked by prosecutors and investi - gating magistrates alike, it does not always fail and has never been known to be sanctioned or result in disciplinary measures or prosecution. 2.8 Claims Against “Unknown” Fraudsters It is possible to file a criminal complaint against X, as unknown parties, and this often occurs. One reason that this tactic is used is that it pre - vents the defendant from filing criminal charges in calumnious denunciation if the criminal com - plaint fails. It is not possible to file a civil sum - mons and complaint against an unknown party. 2.9 Compelling Witnesses to Give Evidence The investigating magistrate in a criminal case may compel witnesses to give evidence for their own investigations.
In civil matters, Article 326 et seq of the CPC provide for the possibility of demanding an investigation and testimony, but this has not been known to have been put into practice. In any event, spouses, ex-spouses and children may not be compelled to testify, nor may anyone who is professionally bound by confidentiality. The new Article 277 of the CPC provides that third parties may be compelled to produce doc - umentation. Monaco is a signatory to the Hague Evidence Convention. 3. Corporate Entities, Ultimate Beneficial Owners and Shareholders 3.1 Imposing Liability for Fraud on to a Corporate Entity A company or legal entity can be held liable for a crime or delict under the provisions of Article 4-4 of the Penal Code. The company’s respon - sibility does not preclude the responsibility of the directors or officers. The entity may therefore be held liable for the fraud to the victims in a criminal trial. In a civil case, the directors may be held respon - sible for their actions on behalf of the company. 3.2 Claims Against Ultimate Beneficial Owners In criminal matters, the ultimate beneficial own - ers – having benefitted from the infractions – can be included along with a company and its direc - tors and officers. In civil cases, the legal personality of the com - pany has been respected in case law where, for
273 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook