The Truth About Lucia Bartoli’s Employment Contract With Philipp Plein

The employment documents reviewed raise serious questions about the nature of the financial arrangements put in place between Philipp Plein and Lucia Bartoli during their relationship.

While Ms Bartoli was the long-term partner of Mr Plein and the mother of his two young children, she was forced to be formally placed on an employment contract within his corporate group, Philipp Plein Management GmbH in Lugano. Under that contract, she was designated as an “Executive Assistant to the President and CEO,” reporting directly to Mr Plein, with a fixed salary of CHF 54,000 per year (CHF 4,500 per month). However, Ms Bartoli never received this salary per month, as an automated salary. Ever. Ms Bartoli was also never permitted to undertake any paid work directly.

Ms Bartoli never received a company card, and she didn’t understand if this was in place or not. Instead, in early 2021 she was given what looked like a personal American Express card, (which matched his own personal card, same design and flower on it) which on the face of it was not linked to any company of Mr Plein. Mr Plein told Ms Bartoli that she should use for day – to – day expenses.

The structure of that contract - including the relatively modest fixed salary, strict personal reporting line to Mr Plein, and extensive confidentiality obligations - raises serious doubt as to whether it reflected a conventional employment relationship.

Instead, the arrangement appears to have functioned as a mechanism through which financial support was provided and controlled.

This arrangement remained in place from April 2020 until 22 July 2024, when Ms Bartoli was terminated with immediate effect when her relationship Mr Plein ended. The “termination letter” invoked “serious misconduct” and resulted in the instant withdrawal of all salary and financial support, alongside demands for the return of company property and the threat of further legal action.

Mr Plein then alleged that Ms Bartoli has stolen money from the company by using this American Express card. However, Ms Bartoli also never received the “termination letter” which had been sent by post to her flat, but had then been taken by Mr Plein’s team, so that she would not receive it. The first time that Ms Bartoli became aware of the letter was under cross examination. Legal experts note that where an employment contract does not reflect the true substance of a relationship, it should be treated as a sham arrangement. Which will give rise to significant legal consequences.

In Switzerland, such conduct may expose individuals and companies to:

• Tax reassessments and penalties, where payments are mischaracterized as salary rather than personal support;

• Fines or criminal liability for tax fraud in cases of intentional misrepresentation;

• Social security liabilities, including back payments and penalties relating to AHV/AVS contributions;

• Corporate governance breaches, including potential claims for misuse of company assets or false accounting under the Swiss Code of Obligations.

In the United States, where parallel principles apply, similar conduct may give rise to:

• IRS investigations for misclassification of payments and improper deduction of personal expenses as business costs;

• Civil penalties and interest, and in serious cases criminal exposure for tax fraud or false filings;

• Employment law violations, including misclassification and failure to comply with payroll obligations;

• Potential scrutiny under broader doctrines concerning fraudulent or sham transactions used to disguise the true nature of financial arrangements.

The situation is further compounded by the manner in which the arrangement was terminated. The immediate dismissal, coupled with allegations of misconduct and the complete withdrawal of financial support, raises concerns that the structure may have enabled one party to exercise unilateral financial control.

In circumstances where income is routed through a corporate employment mechanism controlled by one individual, the ability to terminate that arrangement instantly can have profound financial and personal consequences.

More broadly, this case raises serious concerns about the use of corporate structures to manage or control financial dynamics within intimate relationships, and the imbalance that can arise where one party controls both economic resources and legal positioning.

These are matters that warrant careful judicial and regulatory scrutiny.