Press Review - Week of 24 April 2026

Press Review – Week of 24 April 2026

This week’s press review looks back at the search of Engie premises as part of a judicial investigation into allegations of corruption, influence peddling, and misappropriation of public funds; the conviction of an individual who obstructed a home inspection by the French Financial Market Authority (Autorité des marchés financiers); and the final adoption of the anti-corruption European directive. It also covers the recent decision of the Cour de cassation, which provides clarification on the characterization of defamation, as well as the conviction of the former CEO of a cryptocurrency exchange platform for having improperly concluded an agreement intended to put an end to an arbitration proceeding.

#White collar crime

Rachida Dati–GDF Suez case: Engie premises searched as part of a judicial investigation into corruption, influence peddling and misappropriation of public funds

On April 16, 2026, the French National Financial Prosecutor’s Office (Parquet national financier – PNF) carried out a search at the premises of the Engie group as part of a judicial investigation opened into suspicions of corruption, influence peddling, misappropriation of public funds, handling of stolen goods and money laundering linked to the mandate exercised by Rachida Dati as a Member of the European Parliament between 2009 and 2019. The investigation initiated following a report from Tracfin, reportedly concerns in particular fees amounting to €299,000 allegedly paid by GDF Suez in 2010 and 2011, which the former minister disputes. Two investigating judges have been appointed, and the investigation, conducted by the Central Office for the Fight against Corruption, continues in particular through the analysis of data seized during searches carried out at the end of 2025. In addition, Rachida Dati is due to stand trial in a separate case for passive corruption and influence peddling in connection with former Renault CEO Carlos Ghosn. > Read the article.

The European Union adopts its first anti-corruption directive

On 21 April 2026, the Council of the European Union approved the first European directive dedicated to combating corruption, initially proposed by the European Commission on 3 May 2023. The twenty-seven Member States reached an agreement on the definition of offences as well as on the applicable penalties for corruption, embezzlement, influence peddling, obstruction of justice, and illicit enrichment. The text also provides for the establishment of common thresholds for maximum penalties. In addition, it requires Member States to set up specialized authorities responsible for the prevention and repression of corruption. Member States have two years from the entry into force of the directive to transpose its main provisions into national law. > Read the article.

#Dispute resolution & regulatory investigations

Obstruction of an AMF investigation: sanction by the Paris Criminal Court

As part of an investigation conducted by the French Financial Market Authority (Autorité des marchés financiers – AMF) into possible market abuse, an individual refused to grant investigators access to their home. Following this obstruction of a home inspection, the Paris Criminal Court, in a judgment dated 9 April 2026, sentenced the individual to a six-month suspended prison term and a fine of €20,000. Moreover, the AMF, acting as a civil party, obtained an order requiring the individual to pay it €1 in respect of moral damages and €5,000 for legal costs. As a reminder, the French Monetary and Financial Code provides that obstruction of an AMF supervisory or investigative mission is punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment and a fine of €300,000. >Read the article.

#Litigation and International investigation

Defamation targeting a company may not necessarily reflect on its executives

In a ruling dated 18 March 2026, the French Cour de cassation addressed defamation targeting a company rather than its executives. It recalled that, to establish public defamation against an individual, the person concerned need not be expressly named, provided that their identification clearly results from the wording of the statement or writing, or from extrinsic circumstances that clarify and confirm that designation so as to make it obvious. In this case, company executives argued that allegations made against their company had caused them prejudice. The French Cour de cassation upheld the French Court of Appeal’s dismissal of their claim, holding that the allegations made against the company could not be extended to its executives, since nothing in the text referred to their actions or conduct, nor suggested their personal involvement in the commission of the acts for which the company had been mentioned. > Read the article.

#Arbitration and Mediation

Crypto executive liable for “improperly” settling HKIAC case

By a summary judgment dated 2 April 2026, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance held the former CEO of the cryptocurrency exchange CoinFLEX liable for improperly entering into a settlement agreement that brought an end to arbitration proceedings before the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), on terms that exclusively benefited his personal interests rather than those of the company. The court found that he acted without the authorization of the other directors and in breach of his fiduciary duties. It held that it was clear the settlement was contrary to the group’s interests, which would have been better served by continuing the arbitration. The other allegations, including asset misappropriation, unauthorized agreements, breach of fiduciary duties, and disclosure of confidential information and withholding access to essential systems, were found to require a full trial. >Read the article.