€258,944.07 in damages for employee fraud despite a settlement agreement

Employment Law

7 September 2018

€258,944.07 in damages for employee fraud despite a settlement agreement

Stelt u zich eens voor: u werkt al jaren met dezelfde zelfstandige. Hij stuurt facturen, factureert btw en heeft een eigen kvk-nummer. Toch krijgt u in 2026 ineens vragen van de Belastingdienst over de aard van uw samenwerking. Hoe heeft het zo ver kunnen komen?

To terminate an employment contract, a settlement agreement is regularly concluded between the employer and the employee.

But what if you find out something you did not know about at the time the agreement was entered into? For example, that the employee committed fraud, and that you therefore unknowingly suffered damage? The Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal recently ruled on this. In this blog I first explain why this, given the agreements made in settlement agreements, is so remarkable. I then discuss what was at issue and what you, as an employer, can learn from it.

Agreements in the settlement agreement

In addition to standard agreements such as the end date, whether or not to keep working until the end date, or a severance payment, “full and final discharge” is agreed in virtually all cases. This means that both the employee and the employer declare that they have nothing further to claim from each other, with the exception of what is included in the settlement agreement. As an employer, this prevents the employee from later still claiming something from you. A downside is that, as an employer, you cannot do the reverse either.

Facts

An employee was employed as head of administration, or bookkeeper, and was responsible for reorganising the bookkeeping and proactively contributing within the management team and taking the lead within the administration. The employer was not satisfied with the executive and managerial tasks and therefore wished to terminate the employment contract.

For that reason, the parties concluded a settlement agreement including, among other things, a termination payment of €38,500 and the agreement that the parties grant each other mutual full and final discharge.

Two years later, the employer engaged Hoffmann Bedrijfsrecherche [a corporate investigation firm] following a suspicion of fraud committed by the by-then former employee. In conversation with Hoffmann Bedrijfsrecherche, the employee admitted to having embezzled money from the employer during the employment. The reason for this was a leave request that had not been granted in 2007.

As a result of this admission and the embezzlement that had come to light, the employer reported the matter to the police and initiated subdistrict court proceedings to claim damages from the employee. It invoked mistake with regard to the settlement agreement. The employer stated that it would have made different agreements had it been aware of the embezzlement. The employee disagreed with the claim. He believes the employer bears partial blame for the fraud, because the employer had exercised insufficient oversight. This allowed the fraud to continue for years. In addition, the employee points to the full and final discharge agreement, which, according to him, means the employer can no longer claim damages.

Ruling

The Court of Appeal ruled in the employer’s favour here. The fact that the employer had exercised insufficient oversight is not sufficient to bear partial blame for this fraud. The agreement to grant each other full and final discharge related to all disputes existing between the parties at that time. This does not include the fraud by the employee that was discovered later. The employer did not know at the time that the employee had committed fraud. Moreover, the employee had concealed this when entering into the settlement agreement. The Court of Appeal therefore considers the employer’s invocation of mistake justified and orders the employee to pay damages of €258,944.07.

Conclusion

If you enter into a settlement agreement with your employee to terminate the employment contract and grant each other full and final discharge, this in principle ensures that you can no longer claim anything from each other. As is so often the case, there is again an exception to this rule. If you discover something you did not know about at the time of entering into the agreement, such as fraud, theft or embezzlement, it is possible to still claim damages and escape the agreements made.

Are you in the same or a similar situation? Then contact us. We can assess for you whether your damages claim has a good chance of success. Of course, you can also approach us for drafting or reviewing settlement agreements.

De afgelopen jaren stonden in het teken van de Wet VBAR, het wetsvoorstel dat een einde moest maken aan onduidelijkheid over de zzp’er. Het kabinet heeft delen van dat voorstel inmiddels geschrapt. Op het eerste gezicht is dat goed nieuws: minder regels, minder administratieve last. Maar in de praktijk blijven dezelfde toetsen overeind.

“De inhoud van de samenwerking is leidend, niet wat er op papier staat.”

De Belastingdienst handhaaft sinds 1 januari 2025 weer actief op schijnzelfstandigheid. En recente uitspraken van de Hoge Raad bevestigen dat rechters strikt toetsen of er sprake is van ondergeschiktheid en gezagsverhouding.

Voor uw praktijk betekent dit drie dingen. Een: leg de samenwerking duidelijk vast, met aandacht voor de inhoud. Twee: voorkom dat een zzp’er feitelijk werkt als werknemer. Drie: wees voorbereid op een controle, en weet hoe u de relatie kunt herzien als dat moet.

Heeft u vragen over uw concrete situatie? Wij sparren dagelijks met opdrachtgevers over hun zzp-relaties. Vraag een offerte op of bekijk onze Legal Safe abonnementen.