Through the analysis of this report, five key observations have been identified. First, corruption, embezzlement of public funds or assets, and favoritism dominate probity offenses brought before French courts (I). Second, these offenses are more prevalent in cases involving public-private sector overlap and in certain geographic areas (II). Third, recurring methods of operation have been identified in the commission of these offenses (III). Fourth, judicial responses primarily target natural persons and are characterized by a high conviction rate (IV). Finally, the significant proportion of reports under Article 40 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure leading to prosecutions highlights the need for companies to strengthen their compliance systems (V).

I. Corruption, embezzlement of public funds or assets, and favoritism dominate probity offenses brought before French courts

The analysis reveals that corruption, in both its active and passive forms, is the most common probity offense, accounting for 36.9% of the recorded offenses.[1] These cases involve proposals or solicitations of benefits in exchange for acts related to the functions, missions, or mandates of the individuals involved, or facilitated by them.

Next comes the embezzlement of public funds or assets (22.1%), which includes practices such as fictitious employment, the employment of public agents for personal purposes, or the misappropriation of seized items during a search,[2] and favoritism (15.5%), an offense particularly related to public procurement and the violation of principles of equality and transparency in the awarding of such contracts.[3]

By contrast, influence peddling (8.4%)[4] or concussion (2.5%)[5] are the least represented offenses among the 504 court decisions studied.

In the vast majority of the cases analysed, only one type of probity offense is prosecuted, as only 13.29% of cases involve a combination of multiple probity offenses. According to AFA, this tends to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon by the criminal judge.[6]

II. Probity offenses are more prevalent in cases of public-private sector overlap and in certain geographic areas

Just over half of the court decisions concern the public sector (51.6%)[7] and involve local authorities. Among these, 41.3% relate to municipal authorities, 8.6% to departmental authorities, and 4.4% to regional authorities.[8] Central and decentralized State administrations (24.3%) and public institutions (17.8%) also represent a significant share of the identified cases.[9]

On the private sector side, specialized, scientific, and technical activities (15.4%) as well as building industry (14.5%) are the most exposed to probity offenses. According to the French classification of activities published by INSEE, specialized, scientific, and technical activities notably include legal and accounting services, management consulting, engineering, scientific research, advertising, etc.[10]

A particularly notable aspect of probity offenses lies in the overlap between the public and private sectors. The private sectors most affected by these offenses are often those where this interconnection is the strongest. The analysis of court decisions highlights a mapping of specific vulnerabilities depending on the nature of the offenses. For example, local authorities, particularly municipal authorities, play a significant role in cases involving both the public and private sectors, often in connection with the building industry.[11]

The distribution of offenses across the national territory is uneven. Some geographic areas are more affected than others by probity offenses.[12] The PACA region, Corsica, and overseas territories show a higher prevalence of probity offenses, confirming trends already observed in other studies.[13]

III. Methods of operation for some probity offenses appear to be recurring

The analysis of court decisions conducted by AFA highlights similar methods of operation in the commission of probity offenses.

For example, false invoicing appears as a recurring method of operation in cases of probity offenses. It involves issuing invoices for fictitious services or inflating prices to conceal an illegal transfer of funds.[14]

Certain methods of operation are also prominent depending on the nature of the offense. Thus, unlawful taking of interest often occurs when the defendant participates in deliberations or committees from which they should normally have withdrawn.[15] In cases of embezzlement of public assets, practices notably include fictitious employment, overbilling, or the use of forged documents.[16] Influence peddling and corruption are often carried out through practices such as the granting of gifts, advantages, services, or bribes.[17]

In cases of favoritism, methods of operation include drafting the specifications and the call for tenders in advance to favor a specific candidate or splitting contracts to bypass regulatory thresholds.[18]

The complexity of certain methods of operation, such as corrupt schemes, with an average of 2.7 defendants per case, complicates the detection and investigation of offenses.[19]

IV. Judicial responses predominantly concern natural persons and are characterized by a high conviction rate

Among the 1,350 defendants identified,[20] 92.4% are natural persons,[21] most of them men (79.7%).[22] The median age of these defendants is 44, although this figure varies depending on the nature of the offenses.[23] Public officials (30.1%) and company executives (23.2%) are the most represented profiles among defendants. Elected officials (11.6%) and private individuals (18%) are also involved in a significant number of cases.[24]

Depending on the profile of the defendants, prosecutions tend to involve the same types of probity offenses. Thus, public officials are overrepresented in cases of embezzlement of public assets or funds, favouritism, and concussion. Elected officials, on the other hand, are primarily involved in cases of unlawful taking of interest, while company executives appear in nearly half of the influence peddling cases.[25]

The conviction rate is high, with a guilty verdict rate of 71.7%.[26] For natural persons, judges appear to favor prison sentences alone (37.8% of cases),[27] with an average duration of 15.8 months,[28] while sometimes combining them with fines (37.5% of cases).[29] A fine alone is imposed in 22% of cases.[30] In this regard, the average amount of fines is €20,242 for natural persons and €87,159 for legal entities.[31]

7% of convicted defendants received additional penalties,[32] such as a ban on holding public office[33] or engaging in activities related to the commission of the offenses.[34] These targeted measures complement the repression by tailoring sanctions to the specific circumstances of the case.[35]

However, AFA notes an ambivalence in the cases it has studied, as while the conviction rate appears high, the number of acquittals is also significant. Indeed, the acquittal rate stands at 25.6%,[36] which remains high, particularly for concussion offenses (73.3%).[37]

V. The significant proportion of reports under Article 40 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure leading to prosecutions highlights the need for companies to strengthen their compliance systems

Reports made by authorities and public administrations under Article 40 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure are the trigger for investigations in 32.3% of the cases studied by AFA.[38] This proportion demonstrates that authorities play a key role in detecting probity offenses.

In light of this observation, companies must strengthen their compliance systems, particularly their internal whistleblowing mechanisms, to identify risky behaviours in advance and avoid potential prosecutions. This allows them to be proactive and address these issues by providing appropriate responses.