Paris Judge Orders Cognitive Tests for Hermès Heir Nicolas Puech in Missing Fortune Case

Why a Paris Judge Wants to Test Nicolas Puech's Mental Capacity

A Paris judge investigating the disappearance of Hermès heir Nicolas Puech's fortune has ordered a psychiatric assessment of the 83-year-old to determine whether he was mentally vulnerable when his 6% stake in the luxury group was allegedly taken from him. The order, reported by two people directly familiar with the decision, marks the latest twist in a corporate and legal saga that stretches back a quarter of a century.

The dispute traces its roots to the early 2000s, when LVMH — the luxury conglomerate led by billionaire Bernard Arnault — quietly began accumulating shares in its smaller rival Hermès, working with Puech's Swiss wealth manager, Eric Freymond. Puech says he only discovered in 2022 that his shares had vanished, after he cut ties with Freymond, whom he had trusted blindly for decades. Freymond died in 2025 and denied any wrongdoing during questioning by Paris prosecutors.

The judge's decision to have a team of psychiatrists assess Puech's mental capacity is significant because French law recognises a specific offence — 'abuse of a vulnerable person' — for exploiting someone's diminished mental faculties for illicit financial gain. If the assessment finds that Puech was vulnerable and that this was exploited, it could lower the threshold for criminal liability in the investigation. The case echoes the notorious Bettencourt affair involving the late L'Oréal heiress Liliane Bettencourt, which brought the offence international attention.

Puech has filed a civil suit against LVMH and Arnault seeking €14 billion ($15.5 billion) in damages from whoever is found responsible in the parallel criminal investigation. Prosecutors have focused on Freymond and Swiss lawyer Alexandre Montavon, who advised LVMH on building its stake. Montavon was placed under formal investigation in May on suspicion of complicity in the misappropriation of Puech's Hermès shares; he denies wrongdoing and has appealed the judge's order for the cognitive tests. Neither LVMH nor Arnault has been placed under formal investigation.

What the Hermès Heir Case Reveals About LVMH's Long Game

The Legal Stakes for LVMH and Bernard Arnault

The judge's order to assess Puech's cognitive abilities is not merely a procedural step — it goes to the heart of the case. Under French law, 'abuse of a vulnerable person' is a distinct offence that can be easier to prosecute than outright fraud because it focuses on the exploitation of a known vulnerability rather than proving a complex financial conspiracy. If the psychiatrists conclude that Puech was mentally frail and that this was taken advantage of, prosecutors could pursue charges against those who dealt with his shares with a lower evidentiary bar. That would increase pressure on LVMH and Arnault, even though neither currently holds formal suspect status.

Why the Timing of Puech's Discovery Matters

Puech says he only realised his shares were missing in 2022, after ending his relationship with Freymond. Until then, he trusted his wealth manager implicitly — 'He had all the signatures in my name and drafted all the documents,' Puech told L'Express in a 2025 interview. This long period of blind trust is central to both sides. For Puech, it explains why he did not act sooner and supports the claim that he was vulnerable. For LVMH, it raises questions about whether Puech's own negligence or Freymond's actions — rather than any LVMH scheme — are to blame. The judge's cognitive assessment will likely probe whether Puech understood the transactions at the time.

The Shadow of the Bettencourt Affair

The case has drawn comparisons to the Bettencourt affair, in which the late L'Oréal heiress Liliane Bettencourt's mental decline was exploited by those around her. That scandal tarnished reputations and led to legal reforms. For LVMH, the parallel is unwelcome: it evokes an image of a powerful conglomerate preying on a vulnerable heir. While LVMH has vigorously denied any attempt to acquire Puech's shares through improper means, the reputational risk is real. The company acknowledged in a June filing that it worked with Freymond to build a stake in Hermès but insisted any purchase of Puech's shares would have been unintentional. That admission, combined with Reuters' September report that LVMH paid Freymond at least $20 million in fees, keeps the spotlight on LVMH's past tactics.

What This Means for Hermès and the Luxury Sector

Hermès itself is not accused of wrongdoing, but the case dredges up a bitter chapter in its history. LVMH's stealth accumulation of up to 23% of Hermès in the 2000s triggered a fierce corporate battle and ultimately a 2014 agreement to unwind the stake. The saga has since become a cautionary tale about corporate governance and the limits of aggressive M&A in the luxury world. For investors, the case is a reminder that family-controlled luxury houses like Hermès remain vulnerable to external pressures, and that legal disputes involving their shareholders can create uncertainty. However, with Hermès shares trading at robust levels and the company's operational performance strong, the direct financial impact on Hermès is likely to be limited unless the case uncovers new revelations.

Where the Investigation Goes Next

The immediate focus will be on the psychiatric assessment of Puech. Its findings could shape the direction of the criminal probe and, by extension, the civil suit. Montavon's appeal against the cognitive-test order adds a layer of procedural complexity; if successful, it could delay the assessment. Meanwhile, prosecutors continue to investigate Freymond's role, though his death in 2025 complicates efforts to hold him accountable. For LVMH and Arnault, the key question is whether the investigation moves closer to formal charges. So far, they have not been placed under formal investigation, but the case remains a reputational overhang.

What This Ruling Means for LVMH, Hermès and Luxury Investors

The most important insight: the judge's order for cognitive tests signals that the investigation is now focused on whether Puech was mentally vulnerable — a finding that could make it easier to prosecute those who handled his shares, increasing legal pressure on LVMH and Arnault.

For senior management at LVMH and Hermès, as well as luxury-sector investors, the case warrants close attention because it touches on corporate governance, reputational risk and the potential for criminal liability.

• 0–6 months: Watch for the outcome of Montavon's appeal against the cognitive-test order. If the appeal fails, the psychiatric assessment will proceed, and its findings could be leaked or filed publicly, shaping media coverage. LVMH should prepare a robust communications strategy to reiterate its denial of wrongdoing and emphasise its cooperation with authorities.
• 6–24 months: If the assessment finds Puech was vulnerable, prosecutors may seek to place LVMH or Arnault under formal investigation. That would be a significant escalation. LVMH's legal team should be ready to challenge any such move and to manage investor concerns. Hermès, meanwhile, should monitor for any spillover reputational damage and reinforce its own governance narrative.
• 2–5 years: The civil suit seeking €14 billion in damages could take years to resolve. A criminal conviction of any party would strengthen Puech's civil case. LVMH's long-term strategy and Arnault's legacy are unlikely to be derailed, but a prolonged legal battle could distract management and weigh on sentiment.

Metrics to watch: The date of the psychiatric assessment and its conclusions; any change in the formal status of LVMH or Arnault in the criminal probe; Montavon's appeal outcome; and Hermès share price reaction to major legal developments.