The following case study examines how our defense team secured a no-filing outcomefor a corporate representative who had been wrongly accused of entering a subcontracting agreement without board authority and allegedly causing financial harm to the company.In Washington, D.C., allegations resembling breach of trust punishment typically arise under theories of corporate fiduciary breach, embezzlement, or fraudulent self-dealing, but the threshold for criminal liability is high: Investigators must prove intent, authority, and personal benefit.
1. Breach of Trust Punishment in Washington, D.C.: Scope of Criminal Exposure
In Washington, D.C., criminal exposure for conduct framed as breach of trust, generally arises under statutes involving property misappropriation, fraud, or corporate-officer abuse.For liability to attach, the government must prove that the accused had actual authority, knowledge, and intent to cause loss, all of which were absent in this case.
Understanding the Accusation and the Misconception of Authority
The complainant alleged that the accused, while listed as the company’s “representative director,” executed a subcontract and manipulated civil litigation outcomes to benefit a third-party contractor.
However, our investigation demonstrated that “representative” status was nominal only: the accused had no access to the corporate seal, bank accounts, financial records, or decision-making authority—factors critical for any breach of trust punishment analysis.
Under D.C. Corporate governance principles, authority is determined by actual delegation, not title alone.
Thus, the theory of liability collapsed from the outset.
2. Breach of Trust Punishment in Washington, D.C.: the Role of Actual Corporate Control
To establish criminal wrongdoing involving misuse of corporate authority, investigators must show that the accused exercised real managerial power.In this case, all evidence indicated that the complainant—not the accused—functioned as the true controlling officer. Text messages, emails, and internal communications proved that:The complainant possessed and used the company seal and bank accounts.The complainant unilaterally negotiated contracts, including the disputed deal.Operational decisions were never communicated to or approved by the accused. In Washington, D.C., such evidence negates the core requirement of intentional misuse of entrusted duty, which is central to any breach of trust punishment theory. This became the pivotal factor leading to dismissal.
Contract Execution Occurred without the Accused’S Knowledge
Records confirmed that the subcontract at issue was executed while the accused was outside the country, with no communication, approval, or involvement on their part.
Because a breach of trust crime requires personal involvement and purposeful action, the accused legally could not have committed the alleged act.
3. Breach of Trust Punishment in Washington, D.C.: Evidentiary Standards in Corporate-Crime Investigations
Washington, D.C. Investigators apply stringent evidentiary thresholds in corporate-fraud inquiries.Allegations cannot proceed without documentation that establishes both authority and intentional misconduct. We presented:Travel documentation proving the accused was absent at the time of contract executionCommunications showing they were excluded from operationsEvidence that their name was used solely for corporate loan qualification, not corporate governance This directly contradicted any allegation of deliberate harm—an essential component of a breach of trust punishment analysis. As a result, investigators could not establish even minimal probable cause.
4. Breach of Trust Punishment in Washington, D.C.: Outcome and Strategic Significance
After reviewing our submissions, investigators concluded there was no evidence of corporate misappropriation, fiduciary abuse, or intentional harmattri but able to the accused.The case was formally closed with no referral for prosecution, preserving the client’s professional reputation and personal record. Key Takeaways for Corporate Officers and Nominal RepresentativesTitle ≠ Authority : D.C. Law focuses on actual delegated authority, not nominal labels.Intent Matters : Breach of trust type liability requires proof of knowing misuse of entrusted power.Documentation Wins : Clear organizational records and communication trails can fully exonerate an accused officer.Proactive Counsel Is Critical : Early legal intervention often prevents escalation into formal charges.
