Cameroon operates a bijural legal system combining the French civil-law tradition with English common law, applied respectively in the eight francophone regions and in the two anglophone regions (Northwest and Southwest). At the supranational level, Cameroon is a founding member of the Organisation pour l’Harmonisation en Afrique du Droit des Affaires (OHADA). OHADA Uniform Acts are directly and uniformly applicable in all 17 member States and take precedence over conflicting national legislation (Article 10 OHADA Treaty of Port-Louis, 17 October 1993, as revised in Quebec, 17 October 2008).

Fraud (Escroquerie)

Fraud is criminalised under Articles 318 to 321 of the Cameroonian Penal Code (Law No 2016/007 of 12 July 2016, hereinafter “Penal Code”). Article 318(1) of the Penal Code defines fraud as the obtaining of money, valuables, an obligation-creating or obligation-discharging document, or any other goods by: (i) use of a false name or capacity; (ii) making false statements or creating false beliefs about a past or present fact; or (iii) use of deceptive manoeuvres, including the production of forged documents. The penalty is ten to 20 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of XAF500,000 to XAF10 million (Article 318(2) Penal Code). Aggravated fraud committed against a public institution or by a manager entrusted with another’s assets carries enhanced penalties under Article 319 of the Penal Code.

False Statements

The making of false statements constitutes fraud under Article 318(1)(b) of the Penal Code when it induces another to part with property. Separately, the offence of false testimony is punishable under Article 162 of the Penal Code (three to ten years’ imprisonment). Forgery of public or private documents is punishable under Articles 155 to 160 of the Penal Code, with aggravated penalties where the forgery is committed by a public official.

Corrupt Payments

Active corruption (offering or giving an undue advantage) is punishable by five to ten years’ imprisonment and a fine equal to the value of the bribe, not less than XAF500,000 (Article 134-1 Penal Code). Passive corruption (soliciting or receiving an undue advantage) carries identical penalties (Article 134-2 Penal Code). In commercial matters, the misuse of corporate assets (“abus de biens sociaux”) by a director constitutes a criminal offence under Article 891 of the OHADA Uniform Act on Commercial Companies and Economic Interest Groups (AUSCGIE, revised 30 January 2014), sanctioned under national implementing legislation.

Conspiracy

Criminal conspiracy (“association de malfaiteurs”) is punishable under Article 278 of the Penal Code with one to five years’ imprisonment, independently of whether the planned offence is ultimately committed.

Co-perpetration and instigation are also punishable as autonomous forms of participation under Articles 95 to 97 of the Penal Code.

Misappropriation

Misappropriation of public funds is an aggravated offence under Article 184 Penal Code, carrying 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.

Where a claimant’s agent has received a bribe, Cameroonian law provides the following cumulative causes of action.

Criminal Complaint With Civil Party Status

The claimant may file a complaint (“plainte avec constitution de partie civile”) before the examining magistrate (“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. Individual 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.

Criminal Liability of Accessories and Co-Perpetrators

Under Articles 95 to 97 of the Penal Code, co-perpetrators (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 professional 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 recognise the common law equitable doctrines of knowing 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 enrichment 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 assistance 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 enquiries.

Money Laundering Liability

A third party who receives, converts, transfers or conceals assets knowing or suspecting them to be proceeds of fraud commits the offence of money laundering under CEMAC Regulation No 01/03/CEMAC/UMAC/CM of 4 April 2003 and Law No 2005/006 of 27 July 2005 on the Prevention and Suppression of Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism. The penalties include ten to 20 years’ imprisonment and confiscation of the laundered assets. Financial institutions and other regulated entities that fail to comply with their due diligence or reporting obligations and thereby facilitate the laundering of fraud proceeds may also be exposed to regulatory sanctions and civil liability to the defrauded party under the general law of tort.

Liability of Corporate Facilitators Under OHADA

Where a corporate vehicle has been used to facilitate a fraud, OHADA law provides tools to hold all participating parties liable. Directors who knowingly assist in the misappropriation of assets are personally liable under Article 891 of the AUSCGIE. Where a company has been used as an instrument of fraud by its controlling shareholders or directors, the court may pierce the corporate veil under Article 27 of the AUSCGIE and the doctrine of simulation (Article 1321 Civil Code) to reach the individuals behind it. Third-party companies that knowingly participate in fraudulent corporate structures may themselves be subject to conservatory attachment of their assets under the AUPSRVE.

Tracing and Recovery Against Third-Party Recipients

A fraud victim may pursue assets in the hands of third-party recipients by means of a saisie conservatoire under Articles 54 to 61 of the AUPSRVE against assets traceable to the fraud, regardless of who currently holds them, provided the recipient is not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. Where assets have been commingled, courts apply proportionality analysis to identify the victim’s share (Articles 565 to 577 Civil Code). The action for ownership recovery (action en revendication) under Articles 544 and 2279 of the Civil Code is available against any third-party holder of misappropriated assets where fraud is established.

Criminal Limitation Periods

Under Article 66 of the CPP, the limitation period for public prosecution is ten years for felonies (“crimes”), three years for misdemeanours (“délits”) and one year for contraventions. Fraud (“escroquerie”) is a misdemeanour, subject to a three-year period running from the date of the offence or, in cases of concealment, from the date the victim could reasonably have discovered it. The period is suspended during any period of criminal investigation (Article 66(3) CPP) and interrupted by any act of investigation or prosecution (Article 66(2) CPP).

Civil Limitation Periods

The general civil limitation period is 30 years under Article 2262 of the Civil Code. Commercial obligations under the OHADA Uniform Act on General Commercial Law (AUDCG, revised 15 December 2010) are subject to a five-year prescription period from the date the creditor knew or ought to have known of the right (Article 18 AUDCG). Where criminal and civil proceedings concern the same facts, the principle “Le criminel tient le civil en l’état” (Article 4 CPP) suspends the civil limitation period for the duration of the criminal proceedings.

Restitution Actions

Actions in unjust enrichment are not subject to a specific limitation period and fall under the general 30-year regime of the Civil Code, unless the commercial five-year period under Article 18 of the AUDCG is applicable to the underlying transaction.

Cameroonian law does not recognise the English law concept of a constructive trust. However, several mechanisms enable a fraud victim to assert proprietary claims over misappropriated assets, as listed below.

Ownership Recovery (Action en Revendication)

Under Articles 544 and 2279 of the Civil Code, the owner of property may recover it from any third party, including a bona fide purchaser of movable property where fraud was involved. For immovable property, the limitation period is imprescriptible as between the original parties and runs for 30 years against third parties (Article 2262 Civil Code). Where assets have been converted into substitute property, the victim may claim the substitute as representing the converted proceeds of the original fraud under the doctrine of real subrogation (“subrogation réelle”).

Priority in Insolvency (OHADA)

The OHADA Uniform Act Organising Collective Proceedings for the Clearing of Debts (AUPC, revised 10 September 2015) provides priority to creditors holding real security (“sûretés réelles”) over unsecured creditors (Articles 166 to 168 AUPC). A fraud victim who can identify specific assets as proceeds of the fraud may assert a proprietary claim that ranks above the general body of creditors in insolvency proceedings.

Mixed Funds

Where the proceeds of fraud have been commingled with the defendant’s own funds, Cameroonian courts apply a proportionality analysis. The victim is entitled to claim a proportionate share of the mixed fund corresponding to the traced fraud proceeds, by analogy with the civilian rules on accession and commingling (Articles 565 to 577 Civil Code). Courts have demonstrated a willingness to use financial expert evidence to trace and apportion mixed funds.

Treatment of Gains

Gains generated by the fraudster through the investment of fraud proceeds before recovery are treated as the civil fruits (“fruits civils”) of the victim’s property. Under Article 547 of the Civil Code, a possessor in bad faith is required to account for all fruits from the date of fraudulent acquisition. Since a fraudster is always in bad faith, the victim is entitled to all profits generated from the proceeds from the date of the fraud, including interest and investment returns.

Cameroonian law does not prescribe a formal pre-action protocol for fraud claims equivalent to the English pre-action protocols. However, the following pre-action steps are available and frequently deployed.

Conservatory Attachment (Saisie Conservatoire)

Before formal proceedings, an applicant may seek an ex parte saisie conservatoire under Articles 54 to 61 of the AUPSRVE, upon demonstrating an apparently well-founded claim (“créance paraissant fondée en son principe”) and a risk of dissipation. No prior notice to the defendant is required. The order may attach bank accounts, receivables and movable assets.

Formal Demand Letter (Mise en Demeure)

It is standard practice to serve a formal demand letter (“mise en demeure”) under Article 1139 of the Civil Code before commencing civil proceedings. This puts the debtor in default, triggers the running of interest (Article 1153 Civil Code) and establishes the claimant’s good faith for cost purposes.

Criminal Complaint

Filing a criminal complaint with the Public Prosecutor (“Parquet”) or directly with the examining magistrate (Articles 135 to 161 CPP) is a powerful pre-action measure that triggers a state-funded investigation. The criminal investigation may yield evidence (search and seizure, banking records, expert reports) that strengthens the parallel civil action.

ANIF Referral

Where money laundering is suspected, a referral to the Financial Intelligence Unit (ANIF) may result in administrative freezing of suspicious transactions under CEMAC Regulation No 01/03/CEMAC/UMAC/CM of 4 April 2003on the Prevention and Suppression of Money Laundering and Financing Terrorism in Central Africa, providing immediate protection without court intervention.

Conservatory Attachment (Saisie Conservatoire)

Under Articles 54 to 61 of the AUPSRVE, a creditor holding an apparently well-founded claim may obtain an ex parte court order attaching the debtor’s movable assets (bank accounts, receivables, commercial stock). The order operates in rem and binds all third-party holders from the date of service. No prior judgment is required. The order must be served on the debtor within eight days of the attachment (Article 55 AUPSRVE).

Judicial Security (Sûreté Judiciaire)

Under Articles 62 to 74 of the AUPSRVE, a creditor may obtain a provisional judicial mortgage (“hypothèque judiciaire provisoire”) over the debtor’s immovable property or a pledge over specified movable assets. This creates a priority security interest over subsequently registered encumbrances, effective from the date of inscription at the Land Registry.

Criminal Asset Seizure (Saisie Pénale)

In criminal proceedings, the examining magistrate may order the seizure of all property suspected to be the proceeds of crime under Articles 218 to 224 of the CPP. The seizure operates both in personam (against the defendant) and in rem (against the specific assets). Financial institutions and other third parties are legally bound to comply and may be held criminally liable for obstruction (Article 181 CPP).

Operation: In Rem or In Personam

The civil saisie conservatoire operates in rem against identified assets. The criminal saisie pénale operates both in rem and in personam. There is no pure equivalent of the English Mareva/freezing injunction operating solely in personam, but the combined civil and criminal mechanisms achieve a comparable practical effect.

Court Fees

Court fees for conservatory measures are assessed at a fixed tariff under the Cameroonian Courts Act and are not proportional to the amount of the claim. They are relatively modest and do not present a barrier to access.

Sanctions for Non-Compliance

Violation of a conservatory order by the defendant constitutes the offence of misappropriation of seized goods (“détournement d’objets saisis”) under Article 184(2) of the Penal Code, punishable by imprisonment and fines. A third party (eg, bank) that fails to comply with a garnishment order (“saisie-attribution”) is rendered jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the secured debt under Article 156 of the AUPSRVE.

Cross-Undertaking in Damages

Cameroonian law does not require a formal cross-undertaking in damages as a condition for obtaining a saisie conservatoire. However, the court has discretion to require the applicant to provide security (“caution”) where the risk of wrongful attachment is significant (Article 57 AUPSRVE).

Effect on Third Parties

Once validly served, a saisie conservatoire or saisie-attribution is binding on any third-party holder of the attached assets. A bank that releases funds after valid service is rendered jointly and severally liable under Article 156 of the AUPSRVE. The OHADA enforcement framework ensures uniform application and recognition across all 17 member States.

Cameroonian procedural law provides several mechanisms to compel or facilitate disclosure of a defendant’s assets, as listed below.

Declaration of Assets in Enforcement Proceedings

Under Article 36 of the AUPSRVE, once a writ of execution exists, the creditor may compel the debtor to declare the composition, location and value of all its assets. Failure to make a truthful and complete declaration constitutes a criminal offence under Article 185 of the Penal Code (breach of a court order).

Judicial Interrogation

In the context of criminal proceedings, the examining magistrate may interrogate the defendant as to their assets and require the production of bank statements, property registers and company records under Articles 162 to 185 of the CPP. Silence or false answers may be treated as corroborating evidence of guilt.

Nominee Assets

Cameroonian law does not distinguish formally between assets held in the defendant’s name and those held by nominees. However, courts will pierce the veil of nominee arrangements where there is evidence that the nominee holds assets on behalf of the defendant, applying the principle of simulation under Article 1321 of the Civil Code. Assets held through sham transactions or straw-man nominees are considered the defendant’s assets for enforcement purposes.

Sanctions for Non-Disclosure

Deliberate non-disclosure or false declaration of assets is punishable under Article 185 of the Penal Code. Additionally, a defendant who absconds or conceals assets after service of a conservatory order commits the offence under Article 184(2) of the Penal Code. The claimant is not required to give a cross-undertaking in damages to obtain a disclosure order in enforcement proceedings.

Criminal Search and Seizure

The most effective mechanism for preserving evidence in Cameroon is the criminal search and seizure order. Under Articles 217 to 224 of the CPP, the examining magistrate may authorise the judicial police to conduct searches at the defendant’s residence, business premises and any other location where relevant evidence may be found. Searches must generally be conducted between 6am and 9pm unless urgency requires otherwise (Article 218 CPP). All seized items are inventoried and deposited with the court registry.

Civil Interim Orders

In civil proceedings, the court may appoint a bailiff (“huissier de justice”) to conduct a constatory visit (“constat d’huissier”) and preserve evidence of fraudulent transactions. Under Article 187 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure (CCPC), an emergency judge (juge des référés) may order any measure necessary to prevent imminent damage, including the seizure of documents and business records.

Cross-Undertaking

As noted in 1.7 Prevention of Defendants Dissipating or Secreting Assets, Cameroonian law does not impose a mandatory cross-undertaking in damages for interim measures. The court retains discretion to require security where the balance of harm so dictates.

Electronic Evidence

Cameroon’s Law No 2010/012 of 21 December 2010 on Cybersecurity and Cybercrime recognises electronic evidence and authorises the seizure of electronic devices and data in criminal proceedings (Articles 42 to 46). Courts have increasingly relied on electronic forensic evidence in complex fraud cases.

Criminal Rogatory Orders

The examining magistrate may address rogatory orders (“commissions rogatoires”) to any person or institution in possession of relevant evidence, including banks, telecommunications companies and public registries, under Articles 163 to 175 of the CPP. Compliance is mandatory; refusal constitutes an offence under Article 181 of the CPP.

Civil Court Orders

In civil proceedings, Article 9 of the CCPC empowers the court to order any third party to produce documents in their possession that are relevant to the dispute. A party may also request the appointment of a judicial expert (“expert judiciaire”) under Articles 54 to 75 of the CCPC to examine third-party financial records. Refusal by a third party to comply may give rise to contempt sanctions and adverse inferences.

Pre-Proceedings Evidence Gathering

A constatory visit by a bailiff (“constat d’huissier”) may be requested before the commencement of proceedings to preserve evidence that is at risk of destruction. This is recognised under Article 186 of the CCPC and Cameroonian bailiff practice. The resulting official report (“procès-verbal de constat”) is admissible as evidence in subsequent proceedings.

Restrictions on Use

Documents obtained through court orders or criminal investigation procedures may only be used for the proceedings for which they were obtained. Their disclosure to third parties or use in foreign proceedings requires specific judicial authorisation. Banking secrecy rules (see 7.2 Laws to Protect “Banking Secrecy”) may limit the scope of third-party disclosure absent a court order.

Cameroonian procedural law expressly provides for ex parte (without notice) interim orders in fraud matters, as described below.

Ex Parte Saisie Conservatoire

By design, the saisie conservatoire under Articles 54 to 61 of the AUPSRVE is obtained ex parte. The applicant must demonstrate an apparently well-founded claim and a risk of dissipation. The element of surprise is essential to the effectiveness of the measure; prior notification would enable the respondent to dissipate assets. The court must be satisfied on both conditions and will conduct a summary review of the evidence presented.

Ex Parte Criminal Seizure

Criminal asset seizures under Articles 218 to 224 of the CPP are inherently ex parte, effected by judicial police officers acting under the authority of the examining magistrate. The defendant is notified only after the seizure has been executed.

Additional Burden on Applicant

Since the respondent is not present, the applicant bears a heightened duty of candour and must disclose all material facts, including those adverse to the application (“duty of full and frank disclosure” by analogy with good-faith obligations under Article 1134 of the Civil Code). Misrepresentation or non-disclosure may result in the discharge of the order and an award of costs against the applicant. Courts will set a return date for the respondent to challenge the order on notice.

Emergency Orders (Référés d’Urgence)

Under Article 187 of the CCPC, emergency orders (“référés d'urgence”) may also be obtained on short notice (rather than full ex parte) where a degree of urgency permits notifying the defendant at short notice. The judge sits as a single judge and may grant immediate relief pending a full hearing.

Criminal prosecution is extensively used by fraud victims in Cameroon and constitutes an integral component of most fraud recovery strategies. The primary mechanisms are as follows.

Plainte Simple and Plainte Avec Constitution de Partie Civile

A victim may file either a simple complaint (“plainte simple”) with the Public Prosecutor or a complaint with civil party status (“plainte avec constitution de partie civile”) directly with the examining magistrate (Articles 61 and 135 CPP). The latter triggers a mandatory judicial investigation and entitles the victim to seek damages before the criminal court (Article 357 CPP), avoiding the cost and delay of separate civil litigation.

Practical Interaction Between Criminal and Civil Proceedings

The principle “Le criminel tient le civil en l’état” (Article 4 CPP) requires civil proceedings to be stayed where the same facts are the subject of a pending criminal prosecution. However, this is not an absolute rule: courts will permit civil proceedings to continue on a different legal basis (eg, contract claims not dependent on establishing the criminal offence). In practice, the criminal investigation provides valuable evidence (banking records, expert reports, witness statements) that is subsequently relied upon in civil proceedings.

Confiscation

Courts may order the confiscation of all property derived from the fraud pursuant to Article 35 of the Penal Code and Article 224 of the CPP. Confiscated assets are transferred to the State, which does not automatically compensate the victim; the victim must separately enforce any civil damages award against the defendant’s remaining assets.

Default Judgment

Under Article 179 of the CCPC, a court may enter judgment by default (“jugement par défaut”) where the defendant has been duly served but fails to appear. Default judgment may be granted on the merits of the claimant’s case without a full contested trial. The defendant may apply to set aside a default judgment (“opposition”) within 30 days of service (Article 181 CCPC).

Summary Judgment

Under Article 191 of the CCPC, a claimant may seek a provisional payment order (“référé-provision”) where the obligation is not seriously contestable. The judge may grant a provisional award without a full hearing on the merits. This is particularly useful where the defendant has acknowledged the debt or where the documentary evidence is overwhelming.

OHADA Payment Injunction (Injonction de Payer)

For commercial debts, the OHADA Uniform Act on Simplified Recovery Procedures (Articles 1 to 18 AUPSRVE) provides a rapid summary procedure enabling a creditor to obtain a payment order without a full trial, provided the debt is certain, liquid and due. The order is granted ex parte and the debtor may file an opposition within 15 days of service (Article 10 AUPSRVE).

Cameroonian law and professional rules impose specific requirements on the pleading of fraud, as listed below.

Specificity Requirement

In both civil and criminal proceedings, allegations of fraud must be pleaded with particularity. In criminal proceedings, the examining magistrate will only open an investigation where the complaint contains sufficiently specific and plausible factual allegations (Articles 135 to 138 CPP). Vague or speculative complaints will be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

Evidence Threshold

Under Cameroonian criminal procedure, the standard for ordering a judicial investigation is sufficient grounds (“charges suffisantes), which requires credible evidence supporting each element of the alleged offence (Article 202 CPP). Courts are vigilant against abusive use of criminal proceedings as a debt recovery tool (“instrumentalisation du pénal”).

Professional Conduct

Cameroonian Bar rules (Règlement Intérieur du Barreau du Cameroun) impose a duty of probity and truthfulness on counsel. An advocate who advances reckless or bad-faith allegations of fraud may be subject to disciplinary sanctions.

Cameroonian law permits proceedings against unknown perpetrators in the following circumstances.

Criminal Complaint “Contre X”

A criminal complaint may be lodged “against person or persons unknown” (“contre X”) under Article 135 of the CPP. This triggers a criminal investigation aimed at identifying the perpetrators. The State bears the cost of the investigation. The examining magistrate has broad powers to gather evidence, identify suspects and issue international arrest warrants (Article 627 CPP).

Civil Proceedings

Under Cameroonian civil procedure, it is not generally possible to issue civil proceedings against a completely unidentified defendant, as the court requires a named defendant for service of process. However, where the claimant can identify a known intermediary (eg, a bank through which fraudulent proceeds passed), civil proceedings may be brought against that party while the identity of the principal fraudster is established through criminal investigation.

Provisional Attachment

Pending identification of the perpetrator, the claimant may obtain a saisie conservatoire over identified assets linked to the fraud, even where the ownership of those assets is disputed or obscure, provided the applicant can demonstrate a sufficient factual nexus between the assets and the fraud (Article 54 AUPSRVE).

Criminal Proceedings

In criminal proceedings, the examining magistrate has the power to summon (“convoquer”) any witness under Articles 196 to 213 of the CPP. Witnesses who fail to attend without lawful excuse may be brought before the court by compulsion (“mandat d’amèner”, Article 135 CPP). A witness who refuses to take the oath or give evidence without justification commits an offence under Article 162 of the Penal Code and may be fined and imprisoned.

Civil Proceedings

Under Article 119 of the CCPC, the civil court may order the compulsory attendance of recalcitrant witnesses (“témoins récalcitrants”). Witnesses who refuse to attend or refuse to answer may be held in civil contempt and fined. The court may also draw adverse inferences from a witness’s unjustified refusal to testify.

Expert Witnesses

The court may appoint a judicial expert (“expert judiciaire”) under Articles 54 to 75 of the CCPC to provide specialist opinion on financial, accounting or technical matters relevant to fraud claims. Expert witnesses are officers of the court and have an overriding duty to the court, not to the parties.

Under OHADA law and Cameroonian national law, corporate criminal liability and attribution of individual knowledge to the company are governed as follows.

Criminal Liability of Legal Persons

Article 74-1 of the Penal Code (as amended by Law No 2016/007) expressly provides for the criminal liability of legal persons (“personnes morales”), including companies, for offences committed on their behalf by their organs or representatives. The company may be subject to criminal fines, prohibition from certain activities, and dissolution. Individual officers remain concurrently liable.

Attribution of Director Knowledge

Under Article 121 of the AUSCGIE, directors act as agents of the company (“mandataires sociaux”) and their knowledge is attributed to the company for all acts within their authority. Where a director commits fraud in the exercise of their corporate functions, the company is vicariously liable to third parties for the resulting damage (Article 1384 Civil Code), without prejudice to the company’s right to seek indemnification from the director.

De Facto Managers

Article 277 of the AUSCGIE extends liability to de facto managers (“dirigeants de fait”) who exercise effective control over the company without formal appointment. Cameroonian courts have applied this provision to pierce nominee arrangements and hold beneficial controllers liable for corporate fraud.

Lifting the Corporate Veil

Cameroonian courts will lift the corporate veil where a company has been used as a mere instrument (“instrument”) of fraud, applying Article 1832 of the Civil Code (requirement of genuine corporate purpose) and the doctrine of simulation (Article 1321 Civil Code). Where the corporate form is fictitious or is used to conceal personal liability, the court will disregard the separate legal personality and hold the ultimate beneficial owner (UBO) directly liable.

Liability of Controlling Shareholders

Under Article 740 of the AUSCGIE, controlling shareholders of a subsidiary that is placed in liquidation may be held liable for the subsidiary’s debts where they have caused the subsidiary’s insolvency through fraudulent management. This provision is directly applicable in Cameroon.

FATF/AML Beneficial Ownership Requirements

Cameroon’s anti-money laundering (AML) legislation requires companies to maintain a register of UBOs, accessible to ANIF  and to courts in the context of criminal investigations. CEMAC Regulation No 01/03 and Law No 2003/004 on the Prevention and Suppression of Money Laundering require financial institutions to identify and verify UBO identity as part of their know-your-customer obligations.

Derivative Action (Action Sociale)

Under Articles 165 and 166 of the AUSCGIE, shareholders may bring a derivative social action (“action sociale ut singuli”) on behalf of the company against fraudulent directors to recover losses caused by the directors’ misconduct. Individual shareholders or groups holding a minimum of 1% of the share capital (or XAF5 million in share value) may bring such an action where the company’s board declines to act (Article 166 AUSCGIE).

Criminal Complaint

Shareholders may also file a criminal complaint against directors for misuse of corporate assets (“abus de biens sociaux”) under Article 891 of the AUSCGIE and the Penal Code. The criminal investigation will examine the directors’ conduct and may result in seizure of assets and conviction.

Emergency Judicial Administration

Under Articles 253 et seq of the AUSCGIE, any shareholder may petition the court for the appointment of a judicial administrator (“mandataire ad hoc”) or for the suspension of fraudulent corporate decisions. These emergency measures are available on short notice and do not require a prior finding of liability.

Jurisdiction Over Foreign Defendants

Cameroonian courts assert jurisdiction over foreign defendants where: (i) the fraudulent act was wholly or partly committed in Cameroon; (ii) the victim is a Cameroonian national or a company incorporated under Cameroonian law; or (iii) the fraud produced effects in Cameroon (Articles 4 to 6 CPP for criminal jurisdiction; Articles 42 to 44 CCPC for civil jurisdiction). This mirrors the internationally recognised “effects doctrine” and the principle of passive personality.

OHADA Courts

The OHADA Common Court of Justice and Arbitration (CCJA), seated in Abidjan, exercises final appellate jurisdiction over all disputes relating to the OHADA Uniform Acts across all 17 member States. Where a fraud claim involves OHADA commercial law, the CCJA’s jurisdiction extends to all member States, simplifying the joinder of overseas OHADA parties.

Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction

Under Article 7 of the CPP, Cameroonian criminal law applies to offences committed abroad where: (i) the accused is a Cameroonian national; or (ii) the offence targets Cameroonian nationals or the Cameroonian State. This broad extraterritorial reach is regularly invoked in cross-border fraud cases.

Service via Diplomatic Channels

Service on foreign defendants is effected through diplomatic channels (via the Ministry of External Relations) pursuant to Article 37 of the CCPC and, where applicable, under the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents (which Cameroon has not signed as at the date of this guide, but which is given effect by bilateral conventions with certain States).

OHADA Zone Service

Within the OHADA zone, service of process may be effected through the simplified channels provided for under the national civil procedure codes of each member State, on the basis of mutual recognition. Cameroonian courts have recognised service effected in accordance with the law of the place of service.

Alternative Service

Where conventional service is impracticable, the court may authorise alternative service (service by publication, service on a local representative or agent, or service by any other means calculated to bring the proceedings to the defendant’s notice) under Article 39 of the CCPC. Courts will grant alternative service orders where the claimant demonstrates genuine difficulty in effecting conventional service.

The AUPSRVE provides a comprehensive and directly applicable enforcement framework across all OHADA member States, including Cameroon. The principal methods of enforcement are the following.

Attachment of Debts/Bank Accounts (Saisie-Attribution)

Under Articles 153 to 172 of the AUPSRVE, a judgment creditor may garnish bank accounts and receivables due to the judgment debtor. Service on the garnishee (eg, bank) freezes the attached amounts immediately. The garnishee must declare the position of the debtor’s account within five days (Article 156 AUPSRVE). A garnishee that fails to comply is rendered jointly and severally liable for the judgment debt.

Seizure and Sale of Movables (Saisie-Vente)

Under Articles 91 to 152 of the AUPSRVE, a bailiff may seize and sell the judgment debtor’s movable assets at public auction. A notice period of eight days from service of the attachment order is required before sale (Article 144 AUPSRVE).

Enforcement Against Immovable Property (Saisie Immobilière)

Enforcement against immovable property is governed by Articles 246 to 300 of the AUPSRVE. The process involves registration of the charge, a pre-sale period of at least three months, and public auction conducted by the court. This is the most powerful enforcement mechanism for high-value fraud recovery.

Periodic Penalty (Astreinte)

Courts may impose a financial penalty (“astreinte”) for each day of non-compliance with a court order under Article 39 of the AUPSRVE. The astreinte mechanism is a powerful tool to compel compliance with disclosure and performance orders.

Exequatur Procedure

Foreign judgments are enforced in Cameroon through the “exequatur” procedure under Articles 299 to 302 of the CCPC. The applicant must file a petition before the High Court, accompanied by: (i) a certified copy of the foreign judgment; (ii) proof that the judgment is final and enforceable in the country of origin; (iii) proof of service on the judgment debtor; and (iv) a certified translation into French or English.

Conditions for Recognition

The court will grant exequatur unless: (i) the foreign court lacked jurisdiction under Cameroonian private international law principles; (i) the judgment was obtained by fraud or in violation of due process; (iii) the judgment is contrary to Cameroonian public policy (“ordre public”); or (iv) the judgment is irreconcilable with a prior Cameroonian judgment on the same issue (Article 301 CCPC).

OHADA Zone Judgments

Judgments of the CCJA are directly enforceable in all OHADA member States without the need for exequatur, pursuant to Article 20 of the OHADA Treaty. This provides a seamless enforcement mechanism across the 17-member OHADA zone.

Bilateral Treaties

Cameroon has concluded bilateral judicial assistance and enforcement treaties with several countries, particularly within the franc zone, which simplify and expedite the exequatur procedure.

Constitutional and Statutory Basis

The right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination are guaranteed by Article 1(2) of the Cameroonian Constitution (Law No 96/06 of 18 January 1996) and given effect by Articles 116 and 305 of the CPP. A defendant may refuse to answer questions in criminal proceedings without this silence being treated as an admission of guilt.

Scope in Civil Proceedings

In civil proceedings, the privilege against self-incrimination has narrower application. A civil defendant may invoke the privilege where answering a court order would expose them to criminal liability, but the court may draw adverse inferences from such refusal under Article 1353 of the Civil Code (judicial presumptions). Courts balance the right of the claimant to disclosure against the risk of self-incrimination on a case-by-case basis.

Inferences From Silence

In criminal proceedings, silence cannot be used as evidence of guilt (Article 305 CPP). However, in civil proceedings, a defendant’s unexplained refusal to disclose information relevant to the claim may give rise to adverse inferences under the doctrine of “présomptions graves, précises et concordantes” (Article 1353 Civil Code), which may be sufficient to establish civil liability in the absence of other evidence.

Legal Professional Privilege in Cameroon

Communications between a lawyer and their client are protected by professional secrecy (“secret professionnel”) under Article 53 of the Cameroonian Bar Act (Law No 90/059 of 19 December 1990) and Article 310 of the CPP. Lawyers are prohibited from disclosing client communications made in the course of the professional relationship. Breach of professional secrecy is a criminal offence under Article 310 of the Penal Code.

Crime/Fraud Exception

The privilege does not extend to communications made for the purpose of facilitating or committing a crime or fraud. Under Article 310 of the CPP, a lawyer who is a participant in or an instrument of a fraud cannot invoke professional secrecy to shield those communications. Courts apply a two-stage test: (i) whether there is sufficient prima facie evidence that the lawyer’s advice or assistance was directed at enabling the fraud; and (ii) whether the specific communication sought falls within the scope of that fraudulent purpose.

Practical Application

In practice, Cameroonian courts are cautious in overriding legal professional privilege and will require strong evidence that the crime/fraud exception applies before ordering disclosure.

Cameroonian civil law follows the French compensatory tradition and does not recognise punitive or exemplary damages as a distinct category of relief. The fundamental principle is that civil damages must be equivalent to the actual loss suffered (“réparation intégrale du préjudice”) and may not exceed it (Article 1149 Civil Code). Moral damages (“dommages moraux”) are, however, recoverable in addition to patrimonial loss, and courts have awarded substantial moral damages in fraud cases involving egregious conduct.

Aggravated Awards in Criminal Proceedings

While civil law does not permit punitive damages, the criminal courts may impose enhanced criminal fines that serve a punitive purpose. In cases of aggravated fraud under Article 319 of the Penal Code, fines may significantly exceed the amount of the fraud. The criminal court may also order the confiscation of all illicit gains under Article 35 of the Penal Code, which goes beyond mere compensation.

OHADA Context

No OHADA Uniform Act provides for punitive damages. However, courts have awarded full contractual penalties (“clauses pénales” under Articles 1226 to 1233 Civil Code) as a form of agreed pre-estimated damages, which may substantially exceed actual loss where contractually provided.

Statutory Banking Secrecy

Banking secrecy in Cameroon is protected by Article 9 of COBAC Regulation R-2016/01 on the Conditions of Exercise of Credit Institution Activities and by Law No 2003/004 on the Prevention and Suppression of Money Laundering. Banks are prohibited from disclosing customer information to third parties without the customer’s consent or a legal obligation to do so.

Exceptions – Court Orders

Banking secrecy is lifted where a court order is served on the bank. Under Article 168 of the CPP, a bank is obliged to produce account records and other information in response to a rogatory commission from an examining magistrate, notwithstanding banking secrecy rules. Similarly, a saisie-attribution under Article 153 of the AUPSRVE overrides banking secrecy and requires the bank to disclose the state of the debtor’s accounts.

ANIF and AML

ANIF, established under Law No 2005/006 of 27 July 2005, has the power to require banks to provide any information relevant to a money laundering investigation, overriding banking secrecy obligations. Banks are subject to a mandatory suspicious transaction reporting obligation to ANIF (Article 17 CEMAC Regulation No 01/03).

Practical Implications for Fraud Claims

In practice, banking secrecy is not an obstacle to evidence gathering in fraud proceedings where a criminal complaint has been filed or a conservatory measure obtained.

Legal Status of Crypto-Assets

Cameroon does not yet have dedicated legislation specifically classifying crypto-assets as legal property. However, CEMAC Regulation No 02/18/CEMAC/UMAC/CM of 21 December 2018 on the Prevention and Suppression of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (as updated) extends AML obligations to virtual asset service providers. Courts have, on a case-by-case basis, treated cryptoassets as assets susceptible to seizure and attachment in enforcement proceedings, applying general property law principles under the Civil Code and the AUPSRVE.

Freezing Relief

The absence of specific crypto-asset legislation creates practical challenges for obtaining freezing orders. However, Cameroonian courts have demonstrated flexibility in applying the saisie conservatoire mechanism under Article 54 of the AUPSRVE to crypto-assets held in identified wallets, where the applicant can provide sufficient technical evidence identifying the wallet and establishing the nexus to the fraud. ANIF has also issued administrative freezing orders in relation to transactions involving crypto-assets suspected of being proceeds of crime.

Particular Issues in Crypto Fraud

Crypto-asset fraud presents specific challenges in Cameroon: (i) tracing is technically complex and requires specialist blockchain forensic expertise; (ii) the anonymity of transactions makes identification of fraudsters difficult; and (iii) cross-border recovery is hampered by the absence of specific OHADA or CEMAC rules on crypto-assets.

Regulatory Developments

Cameroon and the CEMAC zone are actively developing regulatory frameworks for crypto-assets. Practitioners and clients are advised to monitor developments by the Banking Commission (COBAC), the Central Bank (BEAC) and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which are expected to result in comprehensive legislation in the near future.