The Crime of Breach of Trust in Jordanian Law: The Penalty and How It Differs from Fraud and Embezzlement
When an employee keeps sums collected from customers, or a partner or agent refuses to return money handed over for a specific purpose, the fate of the money turns on a single characterization: a debt to be claimed before the civil courts, or a crime whose perpetrator is criminally prosecuted. The Jordanian Penal Code No. 16 of 1960 and its amendments regulates the crime of breach of trust in Articles 422 to 427, sets a penalty that rises with the capacity of the person who received the money, and makes prosecution in some of its forms dependent on a complaint by the injured party. This characterization is determined by the nature of the relationship under which the money was handed over and by what its documents prove, which is why a sound file, whether its owner is the complainant or the respondent, begins with a review of the documents by a lawyer who specializes in criminal cases before any step is taken.
1. When Money Handed Over Becomes a Crime
Breach of trust, also known in everyday usage as abuse of trust or betrayal of trust, rests on two successive elements in Article 422. The first is a lawful handover: the property, cash, things or any document containing an undertaking or a discharge must have been handed to the offender in trust or under an agency, or for display and return, or for use in a specific way, or for safekeeping, or to carry out work with or without pay. The second is later conduct that betrays the purpose for which the property was handed over: concealing it, substituting it, disposing of it as an owner would, consuming it, committing any act that amounts to a transgression, or refusing to hand it over to the person to whom it must be handed.
The penalty for breach of trust in its ordinary form under Article 422 of the Jordanian Penal Code is imprisonment from two months to two years and a fine from ten to one hundred Jordanian dinars (JOD).
The offender in this crime received the money with its owner's consent and for a lawful reason, then turned temporary possession into disposal as an owner. This is what separates it from theft, where the money is taken by stealth, and from fraud, where it is obtained through deception. However, where money passes to the recipient as their own property, such as a loan amount or the price of something sold, a refusal to repay it remains, as a rule, a civil debt and not a crime. The lawyer draws the line between the two situations from the handover documents and from the wording of the contract, the receipt or the power of attorney.
2. The Aggravated Cases in Article 423
Article 423 raises the penalty to imprisonment from two to three years if the person who committed the acts set out in Article 422 is one of the following:
| Paragraph | Capacity of the offender | Penalty | How prosecution is initiated |
|---|---|---|---|
| 423(1) | A paid servant or a worker employed by the employer, where the harm was directed at their master or employer | Imprisonment from two to three years | On a complaint by the injured party, unless the injured party is unknown (Art. 426(1)) |
| 423(2) | The director of a charitable institution and every person responsible for its work | Imprisonment from two to three years | Prosecuted ex officio, with no need for a complaint (Art. 426(2)) |
| 423(3) | The tutor of a person with limited or no legal capacity | Imprisonment from two to three years | Prosecuted ex officio (Art. 426(2)) |
| 423(4) | A lawyer or a notary public | Imprisonment from two to three years | Prosecuted ex officio (Art. 426(2)) |
| 423(5) | Any person delegated by the public authority to manage or guard funds belonging to the State or to individuals | Imprisonment from two to three years | Prosecuted ex officio (Art. 426(2)) |
The first paragraph is the one that appears most often in company and shop files: the sales representative who collects the price of goods and does not hand it over, and the accountant or cashier who disposes of the cash in their custody. Whether the description "a worker employed by the employer" fits the relationship itself is a matter the lawyer examines, because a relationship may look like employment on its face while being a commercial agency or a partnership in substance, and each description has its own effect on the penalty and on how the case is initiated.
3. Breach of Trust, Fraud, Embezzlement and Theft: A Comparison Table
The four property crimes are close in their outcome, since in each of them the money left its owner's hands, but they differ in how the money reached the offender, and that difference is what the Public Prosecutor relies on in describing the charge:
| Crime | How the money reached the offender | The decisive distinguishing element | Article | Penalty in the basic form |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of trust | Handed over with the owner's consent and for a lawful reason: trust, agency, safekeeping, a specific use or carrying out work | Betrayal, after the handover, of the purpose for which the money was handed over | 422 and 423 | Imprisonment from two months to two years and a fine from ten to one hundred dinars; in the cases of Article 423, imprisonment from two to three years |
| Fraud | The owner handed it over under the influence of fraudulent means, a false name or an untrue capacity, or through the offender disposing of property they know they have no capacity to dispose of | The deception precedes the handover and causes it | 417(1) | Imprisonment from six months to three years and a fine from two hundred to five hundred dinars |
| Embezzlement | Entrusted to the offender by virtue of public office, or the offender worked in a bank, a specialized lending institution or a public shareholding company and embezzled its funds | The capacity of the offender and the source of the money | 174 | Temporary labor and a fine equal to the value of what was embezzled |
| Theft | Taken without the owner's consent | The absence of consent at the moment of taking | 399 and 407(1) | Simple theft: imprisonment from six months to two years |
In employer files specifically, an employee who keeps the company's money may be prosecuted for breach of trust as a misdemeanor, and may be prosecuted for embezzlement as a felony punishable by temporary labor if the company is a public shareholding company or a bank, with the same facts in both cases. The description also determines whether the owner of the money can end the prosecution by their pardon, and before which court the case is heard.
4. Civil Debt or Crime: The Dividing Line in Partner and Employer Files
Most breach-of-trust files reach the lawyer in the form of a commercial or employment dispute: a partner who holds on to the project's revenue after a disagreement, an agent who collected the price of a property sold under a power of attorney and did not hand it over, and an employee who left the job with funds or property entrusted to them that they did not return. In each of these situations the lawyer examines two questions before any action: was the money originally handed over in trust, under an agency or for a specific purpose, or did it pass to the recipient as their property and so become a debt they owe? And do the documents contain what proves this nature before the Public Prosecution, or can the papers bear the other side's reading that the money was a loan, a share in a partnership or a current account between the two parties?
A complaint filed under a criminal description that the documents cannot support may end with a decision that sees the dispute as a civil disagreement, so the owner of the money loses time and reveals their papers too early. On the other hand, the civil route may be slower than the owner of the money needs if the facts can bear the criminal description. Choosing between the criminal complaint and the civil action, or combining them through a private-right claim (the victim's personal claim), varies with the nature of the relationship, the strength of the documents and the solvency of the other party, which is itself a legal point that merits consultation.
The file becomes more tangled when the respondent is an employee, because they often answer the complaint with labor claims for wages, end-of-service gratuity or compensation for dismissal. The article on labor claims from the employer's side shows how the establishment's file is read in this confrontation, because what is stated in the criminal complaint may be brought up later in the labor case.
5. The Complaint and the Pardon: When the Injured Party Controls the File
Article 426(1) makes the misdemeanors set out in Article 422 and in the first paragraph of Article 423 crimes that are prosecuted only on a complaint by the injured party, unless the injured party is unknown. If, however, breach of trust is accompanied by one of the aggravating circumstances in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 423, it is prosecuted ex officio under Article 426(2), that is, without depending on a complaint.
This distinction has a direct effect on the outcome of the case. Article 52(1) of the Penal Code makes the victim's pardon extinguish the public-right action (the State's right to prosecute) and the penalties imposed that have not become final, where bringing the case depends on filing a complaint or on bringing a private-right claim. So in the ordinary form the employer holds the key to the file, and their pardon before the judgment becomes final ends the prosecution. In the aggravated forms that are prosecuted ex officio, the public right remains in the hands of the Public Prosecution. The difference between the two rights and the effects of waiving each of them is set out in detail in the article on the public right and the private right in Jordanian law.
6. Returning the Money and Its Effect on the Penalty
The penalty for breach of trust is also affected by what happens after the act, since Article 427 provides that the misdemeanor penalties in this chapter are reduced by half if the harm caused, or the benefit the offender sought, was trivial, or if the harm was removed entirely before the case was referred to court. If the money is returned or the harm removed during the case and before any judgment on the merits, even one that is not final, a quarter of the penalty is taken off. Amending Law No. 10 of 2022 to the Penal Code added a third paragraph that allows a suspended sentence for the misdemeanors in this chapter even if the term of imprisonment exceeds one year, if the complainant withdraws their complaint after the final judgment, provided the other conditions in Article 54 bis are met.
These provisions make timing part of the file. A respondent who returns the money at a certain stage obtains an effect they would not obtain by returning it later, and an owner of money who is negotiating a settlement holds, at each stage, a card whose value differs from the stage that follows. Judging the right moment, the form of the settlement and what is written in it falls to the lawyer in light of the stage of the case and the description of the charge.
Practical note: A release, an acknowledgment of the amount or an installment agreement signed during the dispute may be read before the Public Prosecution or the court as evidence of the nature of the relationship itself, proving or disproving the trust, or turning the facts, in the judge's view, into a civil debt. So do not sign a release, an acknowledgment or a settlement agreement before the lawyer has reviewed its wording in light of the description of the charge and the stage of the case, because the effect of each phrase in it differs from one file to another, or consult a specialist lawyer.
7. Frequently Asked Questions
What is the penalty for breach of trust in Jordan?
The penalty in the ordinary form under Article 422 is imprisonment from two months to two years and a fine from ten to one hundred dinars. Under Article 423 it rises to imprisonment from two to three years if the offender is an employee who harmed the employer, the director of a charitable institution, a tutor, a lawyer or a notary public, or a person delegated by the public authority to manage or guard funds.
Can an employee be criminally prosecuted for not handing over sums collected for the employer?
Article 423(1), which carries imprisonment from two to three years, may apply to the facts, and it is one of the crimes prosecuted only on a complaint by the injured party. However, whether it applies depends on proving that the money was handed to the employee because of their job for a specific purpose, and on the characterization of the relationship between the two parties, which are matters the lawyer settles from the employment and collection documents.
Is breach of trust a felony or a misdemeanor?
Breach of trust under Articles 422 and 423 is a misdemeanor, which is the description Article 426 itself uses. If, however, the offender is a public official or works in a bank or a public shareholding company and embezzled its funds, the facts may move to the felony of embezzlement under Article 174.
Is a breach-of-trust case dropped if the owner of the money waives their claim?
In the forms prosecuted only on a complaint, namely Article 422 and the first paragraph of Article 423, the victim's pardon extinguishes the public-right action and the penalties that have not become final (Art. 52(1)). The aggravated forms prosecuted ex officio are not ended by a waiver, although a withdrawal of the complaint after the final judgment may open the way to a suspended sentence under Article 427(3).
What is the difference between breach of trust and fraud?
In fraud the deception precedes the handover and causes it: the victim handed over their money because they were deceived. In breach of trust the handover is sound in origin, and the betrayal comes afterward, when the recipient disposes of the money as an owner would or refuses to return it.
Is failing to repay a loan a breach of trust?
As a rule, a loan amount passes to the borrower as their property, so a refusal to repay it remains a civil debt. But whether the amount is described as a loan, a trust or money handed over for a specific purpose depends on the documents and the circumstances of the handover, which is why the lawyer studies the papers before choosing the route.
Does the owner of the money recover it as soon as the accused is convicted?
Not automatically. The owner of the money can bring a private-right claim within the criminal case to claim their money, or take the civil route, and the judgment then goes through the enforcement stage. Actual recovery depends on the solvency of the convicted person and on the steps taken early to preserve the money. Where the money was moved between accounts to conceal its source, the lawyer examines whether the file may extend to money laundering under Jordanian law, since that law treats any felony or misdemeanor as a predicate offense.
Legal Consultation
Breach-of-trust files are sensitive on both sides: on the side of the employer or partner, a complaint built on the wrong description may end in a decision that sends the dispute to the civil courts and loses the chance of legitimate pressure to recover the money, and on the side of the respondent, a written acknowledgment or an ill-considered statement may turn an accounting dispute into a conviction carrying imprisonment. The difference between the simple misdemeanor, the aggravated form and embezzlement, and between a pardon that ends the file and a waiver that does not, is settled by reading the documents and by the timing of each step. For a specialist legal consultation in criminal cases and property crimes, or to see how this file connects with the rules on the crime of fraud and the crime of embezzlement, you can contact Alabwini Law Firm & Legal Consultancy.
