Aristophil case: pickpockets cannot act directly against banks

The Cour de cassation (French Supreme Court) has just brought an end to the civil branch of the Aristophil case, in which thousands of victims of the “French Madoff” sought to hold seven French banks liable for failing to exercise due diligence, for alleged losses running into hundreds of millions of euros.

In two rulings dated 10 June 2026, the Commercial Chamber reaffirmed that only the court-appointed liquidator of an insolvent company has standing to bring an action for compensation for the collective harm suffered by that company’s creditors, with a view to reconstituting the estate’s assets and settling its liabilities.

In doing so, it upheld the case law of the Paris Court of Appeal, both in this case and in the Hériteor matter, ruling that the victims of Gérard Lhéritier — sentenced on 11 December 2025 by the Paris Criminal Court to five years’ imprisonment for losses caused to 18,000 investors valued at over one billion euros (a sentence reduced to two years under electronic monitoring following an admission of guilt before the Court of Appeal) — are barred from bringing claims against banks alleged to have held Aristophil’s accounts.

According to the Cour de cassation, “damage resulting from a wrongful act that contributed to the cessation of payments therefore constitutes collective harm, for which only the liquidator may seek redress.”

— The Aristophil case is one of the largest financial frauds to have occurred in France. Investors were offered the opportunity to acquire, for a fixed term, undivided shares in priceless original manuscripts — signed by Napoleon, Flaubert, Beethoven, Einstein, Baudelaire, and others — with the promise of guaranteed annual returns of 8 to 9%, entirely risk-free, along with the prospect of a substantial capital gain at the end of the co-ownership agreement.

A classic Ponzi scheme, in which money from new investors was used to fund returns paid to earlier ones, it collapsed when investigations opened in 2015 led to the freezing of assets.

— Will this case law also put a stop to the opportunistic — and most often futile (if only due to the statute of limitations) — actions encouraged by certain lawyers who have made it their mission to go after the “deep pockets” that banks represent?

That remains far from certain.

One can safely wager that the very same lawyers, undeterred, will now urge future victims of the next Madoff-style scheme to formally call on liquidators to bring claims for such collective harm, and, should the liquidators fail to act, will have themselves appointed as creditors’ representatives (contrôleurs) in order to act directly, as permitted under Article L. 622-20 of the French Commercial Code.

This lucrative market built around fraud victims therefore still appears to have a bright future ahead of it.

In this case, Veil Jourde represented one of the seven banks named in the proceedings.