As announced in its 2022 activity report, the National Financial Prosecutor’s Office (Parquet national financier or “PNF”) has “taken-up the litigation of competition-related infringements”, and the Convention judiciaire d’intérêt public (“CJIP”) which is comparable to a Deferred Prosecution agreement, signed on 10 February 2025 with Paprec illustrates it in the field of public procurement.

The award of public procurement contracts is governed by the French Public Procurement Code, which aimed to ensure compliance with the fundamental principles of public procurement, i.e. freedom of access to public procurement, equal treatment of candidates and transparency of procedures, in order to guarantee the efficiency of public procurement and the proper use of public funds,[1] and to achieve the objectives of sustainable development.[2]

On 10 February 2025, Paprec signed a Judicial public interest agreement with the PNF to bring an end to proceedings against it for corruption, unlawful agreement, concealment of favouritism and money laundering of tax fraud.[3]

I. The offences at stake in the Paprec CJIP

The increased criminalization of breaches of public procurement rules is reflected in the use of criminal qualifications that are not specific to public procurement in order to address manipulative practices in the awarding of these contracts, as illustrated by the Paprec CJIP..

The CJIP concluded between the PNF and Paprec relates to unlawful agreement, active corruption of public officials, concealment of favouritism and money laundering of tax fraud.

Between 2013 and 2021, Paprec was suspected of having colluded with its competitors to not submit bids or to submit non-competitive bids on certain procurement, so that each of the companies could be awarded contracts under determined allocation.[4]

More specifically, Paprec was accused, first, of having obtained a public procurement contract by submitting a bid that was voluntarily higher than that of a company it had bought out, which enabled it to subsequently recover this public procurement contract through the buyout. Second, it was charged for having obtained five public procurement contracts by colluding with two competitors so that the latter would submit bids under conditions ensuring that Paprec would be awarded the contract.[5]

In addition, Paprec was prosecuted for concealment of favouritism[6], an offence traditionally at stake in cases involving breaches of public procurement rules. The charge concerned three public procurement contracts and two public service delegations, for which the company’s executives were suspected of having obtained, between 2013 and 2022, confidential information on the public tender before they were published, or on the bids submitted by competitors.[7]

Concealment is an autonomous offence which enables the person benefiting from the proceeds of an offence to be apprehended. In case of the award of public procurement contract, the original offence is the offence of favouritism committed by the public entity. The company that has been improperly awarded the public procurement contract undeniably benefits from it and is exposed to the risk of conviction.

The Paprec CJIP also illustrates the possibility for companies to be prosecuted for acts of corruption in the context of the award of public procurement.[8] In this case, Paprec was prosecuted for active corruption of a person entrusted with a public service mission, through the intermediary of its directors, improperly obtaining public procurement contracts.

Between 2013 and 2022, Paprec was accused of having provided financial support to an association chaired by the wife of the mayor of a town in which Paprec obtained public procurement contracts.[9] Between 2014 and 2016, Paprec was also suspected of having obtained two public service delegations from the president of an union, in return for hiring the president’s son and contracting with a company run by a friend of a leader of the same union.[10]

Last, Paprec was prosecuted for money laundering of tax fraud.[11] The chairman of Paprec, acting as the company’s representative, was suspected of having used, between 2016 and 2022, the company’s bank cards for cash withdrawals without justifying the purpose or declared them as income. In addition, these withdrawals had artificially increased the company’s expenses.[12]

II. Paprec’s commitments

The CJIP is a mechanism whereby the accused legal entity, in order to avoid criminal prosecution, commits to various undertakings. Here, Paprec undertook to pay a public interest fine, set up a compliance program under the supervision of the French Anti-Corruption Agency (“Agence anti-corruption” – AFA), and has agreed to the transfer of seized assets to the French State.

The amount of the fine is calculated on the basis of the benefits that the legal entity may have derived from the breaches identified, up to a limit of 30% of the company’s sales calculated over the last three years.[13] Paprec has therefore undertaken to pay a fine of 17,538,990 euros, consisting of a restitutive component of 4,190,000 euros and an punitive part of 13,348,990 euros, being specified that the remedial measures implemented by Paprec have been retained as mitigating factors.[14]

During the investigations, the sum of 4,828,000 euros was seized. Paprec agreed to the transfer of this sum to the French State, which was deducted from the total fine owed by the company.[15]

Last, in addition to the financial penalty, a CJIP may be accompanied by a compliance program supervised by the AFA, designed to ensure that the complies with its commitments.[16]

Paprec has thus agreed to submit to such a program for a period of three years, which will include audits of its anti-corruption system, as well as targeted audits to ensure the effectiveness of this system with regard to the risks identified and its deployment.[17] To this end, Paprec is required to set aside a provision of 1,000,000 euros, the unspent funds of which will be returned to it.[18]

Current events demonstrate the ever-growing determination of public authorities to make public life more accountable, particularly in the field of public procurement.