An octogenarian heir to the Hermès luxury fortune, who sparked controversy last year over a plan to leave his money to his gardener, may not have much to give away after all.

In the latest twist to the longstanding mystery surrounding Nicolas Puech’s billionaire status, a Swiss court this month threw out the 81-year-old’s allegations that his former wealth manager had a role in his fortune’s disappearance.

Puech’s lawyers told the court he no longer owns the assets in question: about 6 million shares worth roughly €12 billion ($13 billion) in family-controlled Hermès International SCA. The stake would make him the single largest investor in the purveyor of Birkin handbags and colourful silk scarves founded in 1837. The company has since expanded into one of the biggest players in the global luxury industry and made the Hermès family Europe’s wealthiest. The clan, which counts more than 100 members, has a net worth of about $155 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

The decision by an appeals court in Geneva on July 12 found no evidence that financial adviser Eric Freymond mismanaged Puech’s fortune or that the reclusive fifth-generation Hermès heir was duped over a period spanning more than two decades during which time at least some of the stock was sold.

“The ‘gigantic fraud’ to which he was victim was undetectable to common mortals,” the court document read, adding that the allegations lacked clarity and were insufficiently backed up.

A lawyer for Puech, Gregoire Mangeat, declined to comment, while Freymond’s lawyers, Yannis Sakkas and Stephane Grodecki, said their client was satisfied with the outcome that included “harsh words” against the plaintiff. The case was first reported by online magazine Gotham City.

Lasting Enigma

The court decision is part of the fallout of an attempt by luxury tycoon Bernard Arnault, founder of LVMH, to gain control of Hermès more than a decade ago. He failed, but Puech became a family outcast over his alleged role in the way Arnault stealthily amassed a stake in the company.

The fate of Puech’s roughly 5.7 percent stake remains a lasting enigma from the showdown, which ended in 2014 when Arnault started unwinding his 23 percent holding and Puech quit the Hermès supervisory board.

In a sign the stake is still a preoccupation, on an earnings call Thursday an analyst quizzed Hermès executive chairman Axel Dumas about whether Puech owns the shares. “We don’t have a way to see and control them,” Dumas replied.

The Swiss decision leaves the question of the shares’ whereabouts unanswered. It does, however, offer a peek into Puech’s current circumstances.

Last year, the resident of Orsieres in the Swiss canton of Valais, described in public documents as a French national with an education in the arts, sought to cancel his inheritance contract with his Isocrates Foundation after reportedly starting administrative procedures to adopt his middle-aged gardener to whom he would bequeath some of his fortune. The decision left the charity in limbo and it has since postponed new grants.

In the Swiss case, Puech alleged his wealth came almost entirely from his shares in Hermès and that he no longer owns any of them, but didn’t realise it because Freymond received all his bank statements. The court document describes a 24-year period during which Puech relied on Freymond to manage his fortune.

Starting in 1998, Puech began transferring to Swiss banks Hermès shares that would eventually number 6 million. From that year, he gave Freymond a series of signed mandates to oversee his accounts. Beginning in 2001, shares were sold, bought and transferred through one of the banks.

Crucially, a profit of €53.7 million was recorded on share sales over a nearly two-year period through October 2010, the same month Arnault revealed to the Hermès family that he had amassed a stake in the company. Puech had no “objections” to the entry of the outside investor into the Hermès shareholding and even considered him an “ally,” according to evidence described in the court document. His family, however, mounted a strategy that ultimately succeeded in keeping Arnault at bay.

Equity Swaps

Puech cancelled Freymond’s mandates in October 2022, set out to take stock of his wealth and organise his succession, according to the Swiss ruling. A year later he filed three cases against Freymond, the first alleging the wealth manager withheld information, and wouldn’t and couldn’t return the Hermès shares. The others related to management of his foundation, loans and other investments.

The court ruling concluded that Puech willingly turned over management of his affairs to Freymond, including by signing numerous blank documents and giving access to his bank accounts. Puech never said he was duped or didn’t understand what he was signing, only that he left choices on growing his wealth to Freymond. He could have revoked their agreement at any time, the court said.

“It’s not clear who prevented the plaintiff from taking an interest in how his assets were evolving,” the court found. Puech’s “blind trust” in Freymond is not an indication of the wealth manager’s dishonesty.

By Tara Patel