By Mutunga Tobbias / The Common Pulse/latest news /US/ Kenya/Abroad/Africa / OCTOBER2025.
The tale of Nicolas Puech is one of luxury, trust and betrayal, a story that reads like a parable of wealth mis-management and the fragility of power behind closed doors. A fifth-generation heir to the prestigious Hermès dynasty, Puech once held an estimated 5.7 % stake in the company his forebear, Thierry Hermès, founded in 1837, a stake reportedly worth over €12 billion at its peak.
Yet in recent years, he has insisted that his immense fortune has vanished, slipping away through the hands of a trusted advisor who isolated him from friends and family, siphoned off assets, and concealed the truth. The saga raises profound questions about the nature of trust, governance in ultra-wealthy families, and the checks and balances that even the most powerful can lack.
Heiress, Heir and Outsider
Puech was born in 1943 in Neuilly-sur-Seine, France, into the Hermès family, the son of Francis Puech and Yvonne Hermès. He later moved to Switzerland. Over the decades, he accumulated a reputation as somewhat of a loner among the larger Hermès clan: he did not join the family holding company H51, formed to block a takeover bid by LVMH, and his independence placed him slightly outside the main family machinery.
His apparent stake in Hermès made him one of the richest individuals tied to the brand. But behind the scenes he entrusted his wealth to a Swiss wealth manager, Éric Freymond, whose name would come to symbolize what Puech calls the “heist of the century”.
Entrusting Everything to One Man
The relationship between Puech and Freymond extended over decades. According to Puech, Freymond effectively assumed control over his personal and investment affairs: opening his mail, directing his communications, managing his bank accounts and investing on his behalf. In the process, Puech says he was gradually isolated from old friends and family members who might have asked questions.
Freymond, for his part, claimed that Puech understood and had authorized all transactions. But Puech describes being kept in the dark. He says the turning point came in 2022, when he asked about a transfer of over one million Swiss francs to his longtime handyman, and the handyman’s wife responded that no funds had arrived. That clue spurred Puech to audit his affairs.
By then, he alleges, the Hermès shares he believed he possessed had been sold off, transferred or otherwise disposed of without his realisation. Versions of internal charts suggest his holdings fell from roughly six million Hermès shares in 1999 to fewer than 140,000 by 2012, and down to zero by 2020.
The Missing Shares and Mounting Legal Battles
The crux of the case is: What happened to those Hermès shares? Puech claims the holdings were stripped away from him, that Freymond orchestrated their sale (some allegations point toward LVMH’s involvement) and that the proceeds were hidden. Freymond countered by saying the sales were authorised.
Legal action has followed. Puech filed suits in Switzerland and France, alleging forgery, breach of trust and mismanagement. But in July 2024 a Geneva appellate court rejected his claims, finding no evidence that Freymond mismanaged the assets, noting that Puech had willingly given broad authority and signed off on mandates. Meanwhile, on a more recent front, an agreement to sell 6,082,615 Hermès shares to a Qatar-backed vehicle hit turbulence when it turned out Puech allegedly did not have access to the shares to deliver.
Further complicating matters: Freymond died in July 2025 in Switzerland, a death officially ruled a suicide amid mounting legal and financial pressure.
On the July 30, 2025 earnings call for Hermès, Executive Chairman Axel Dumas stated that the company had “known for a long time that Nicolas Puech no longer holds his shares. That’s why we started legal proceedings.” He added he did not believe the shares could ever be recovered.
Family Disputes, Power Struggles and the Luxury Industry
This episode cannot be considered in isolation from the broader context of Hermès, and the luxury industry more broadly. In 2010 and thereafter, deals, share-holdings and takeover attempts loomed large. LVMH’s attempted acquisition of Hermès caused internal fractures in the Hermès family holding, leading to the creation of H51 to lock in the shares. Puech’s decision not to participate in that holding structure left his stake more exposed.
Indeed, one of the papers says that by 2025 the legal dispute pitting Puech and his advisor revived “the enduring mystery: what happened to Nicolas Puech’s Hermès shares?”
It also underscores how luxury conglomerates operate: shares in Hermès are held tightly, controlling families remain powerful, and outsiders, even wealthy heirs, may find themselves cut off if they dissent from the group’s consensus. Puech’s marginalisation in the family strategy could have exposed him to risk.
What the Numbers Suggest
The scale of this is staggering. If Puech did hold roughly six million shares and they were sold without his knowledge, the missing fortune could run to tens of billions of euros. One article speaks of “a fortune worth more than €14 billion” effectively disappearing.
An audit cited in recent coverage indicated Puech held only €600,000 in cash and about €96 million in equities and other investments as of December 2023, with much of that tied up in illiquid or opaque ventures.
On the other hand, the Swiss court’s 2024 judgement suggested that Puech voluntarily gave up control and that his claims lacked clarity and evidence of wrongdoing on Freymond’s part.
The Human Element
Beyond the money, there is something deeply human in this story: an elderly man, living somewhat apart from his family, trusting a confidant, and then discovering that trust may have cost him everything.
Puech reportedly had no spouse or children and in recent years surprised many by announcing he would adopt his 51-year-old gardener, whom he intended to name heir, alongside the gardener’s wife. This move triggered family concern and media attention, but it also underscores Puech’s solitude and the unconventional allegiances he built outside the family. Some observers suggest that this detachment from the traditional dynasty left him lonely and more dependent on the one person he gave control to.
Freymond, by contrast, had built a flamboyant persona: art collections, luxury homes, connections in high finance. According to press accounts, in the 1980s he already used pre-signed forms and other mechanisms to control client accounts. Whether he was a criminal mastermind or simply a deeply flawed operator remains disputed.
What Went Wrong?
This case offers multiple cautionary take-aways for ultra-wealthy individuals, their families, and advisors.
First, consolidation of power in the hands of a single advisor is risky. Even if that advisor is trusted for decades, the absence of meaningful oversight, periodic audits, independent review can lead to vulnerabilities.
Second, isolation is a major red flag. When the owner of the assets is cut off from friends, family, external counsel, or their own bank statements, the chance for manipulation increases.
Third, delegation of authority must be accompanied by transparency. Signing blank mandates or broad authority without limits effectively places your future in someone else’s hands. Puech’s case reportedly featured just that.
Fourth, large stakes in family companies, especially when not actively participating in governance or oversight, can be riskier than they appear. The fact that Puech was outside the H51 holding may have left his exposure greater.
Finally, this story is a reminder that visibility, whether you are ultra-wealthy or not, can be a defensive asset. The more assets you hold invisibly or indirectly, the more vulnerable you may become to mis-management or mis-appropriation.
What’s Next
As of mid-2025 the story is still unfolding. Legal actions continue in France and Switzerland. Hermès itself appears resigned: the company’s chairman has said they don’t believe the missing shares can be recovered.
For Puech, the personal toll is heavy. He told magistrates: “Otherwise, I have nothing left.” Whether he will ever recover the alleged missing fortune, reclaim agency over his remaining assets, or reshape his legacy remains to be seen.
For the luxury industry and family-owned businesses, the case shines light on latent governance risks. It prompts boards and families to review how ownership is maintained, how share pledges are managed, and how heir equity is protected from internal and external threats.
For families and high-net-worth individuals, regardless of industry, this is a wake-up call: wealth is not just about accumulation, but also about preservation, transparency and strong structures. Generational wealth without oversight, isolation of the owner, delegation without checks, these are vulnerabilities.
The saga of Nicolas Puech stands as a striking reminder that massive wealth does not guarantee control, security or clarity. Even as an heir to one of the world’s most prestigious luxury brands, he found himself saying that his shares had vanished, that his former advisor had isolated him, and that for all his fortune, he might have very little left. The inner workings of family business, the machinations of wealth management, the loneliness of inheritance, they all weave into what may become one of the most extraordinary financial mysteries of our time.
Whether this will end with recovery and restoration of Puech’s holdings or simply with the dismantling of a dynasty’s expectation remains uncertain. But the story already offers lessons far beyond the Hermès universe. Trust, oversight, transparency and active citizenship in one’s own fortune are timeless. Without them, even billions can disappear quietly, unnoticed, until the crisis becomes unavoidable.
Comments
Post a Comment