Analysis
14 July 2019

Compliance monitorship by the French Anti-Corruption Agency (AFA)

Bastille Day Newsletter 2019 - Legislative, Regulatory & Policy Updates

 

The French Anti-Corruption Agency (AFA) was empowered by the Sapin II Law1 to handle monitorships of companies as part of the implementation of the French Deferred Prosecution Agreements (Convention Judiciaire d’Intérêt Public “CJIP”). As of today, the monitorship process is still under experimentation and some consider it too narrowly focused on anti-corruption and recommend assessing other areas of compliance risk2.

Conditions and process of the AFA monitorship

Since 2017, France has introduced the CJIP into its legal system, a means by which companies, under determined conditions, can escape public proceedings by paying a fine or complying with certain obligations3. These obligations can be the implementation of an action plan4 aimed at improving the company’s compliance system under the AFA’s control for a maximum of 3 years5.

Given the complexity of the tasks resulting from monitoring a company, the AFA may delegate to or be assisted by law firms and experts6, as long as the monitorship complies with budget restrictions. Indeed, in an interview given to the Global Investigations Review (GIR), the AFA’s director of strategic analysis and international affairs, Renaud Jaune, considered that this externalisation “may prove too costly” 7 for the company, which must bear the costs.

The French monitoring procedure includes 5 stages. After an initial audit, a report establishing the action plan is drafted and then validated by the AFA. During the implementation’s phase, the AFA undertakes several tests to verify the company’s evolution and report annually to prosecutors. Finally, the AFA will draft a concluding report addressed to the prosecutors, evaluating whether the company has reached the required goals8.

Moreover, according to Julien Laumain, an AFA compliance expert, the Agency has a specific role in foreign monitorships on French companies, particularly by ensuring that national security-sensitive information will be protected from foreign monitors9.

Results and perspectives

In 2018, among the 5 companies that have entered into CJIP, 4 of them have had designated the AFA as a compliance monitor10. The most significant case concerns the French bank Société Générale, which agreed in May 2018 to a EUR 250 million fine and a 2-year monitorship11. This case is particularly significant, as it is the first US and French joint bribery resolution, signed with both the French National Financial Prosecutor’s Office (“PNF”) and the US Department of Justice (“DOJ”). As part of the settlement, the DOJ was asked by lawyers to allow the AFA monitorship to be set up instead of a DOJ monitorship12.

Although it is too early to determine whether this type of agreement is to become common practice, it is a turning for US/France cooperation13. The AFA Director Charles Duchaine, declared that these agreements would be used as prototypes, and that France must be competent to monitor French companies, even when the monitorship obligation of comes from a foreign authority14.

According to the 2018 AFA activity report, the first 4 monitorships clearly shown that at least 2 years are required in order to execute an effective control. Moreover, 2 of the CJIPs concluded in 2018 took place at a moment in which the company was operating a managerial change.

The AFA concludes that it can be in the interest for the company to accept a monitorship that will erase previous mistakes and improve its reputation regarding ethics issues15.

Related content

Publication
29 January 2026
Regulatory Implications of a Tainted Arbitration: Lessons from the TotalEnergies Case
Navacelle contributes to The Legal Industry Reviews' 11th edition, focusing on a rare example of the diversion of international arbitration,...
Analysis
5 December 2025
The forthcoming Directive 2023/0135 (COD) on combating corruption
In its latest issue of L'Observateur de Bruxelles, the Delegation of French Bars (Délégation des Barreaux de France) has published...
Analysis
5 November 2025
Modernization and strengthening of the French Financial Markets Authority’s powers
On September 16, 2025, a bill was introduced in the National Assembly to increase the powers of the AMF and...
Publication
13 September 2024
Cross-country insights: Addressing Corruption Allegations in Arbitration Disputes
This guide aims at providing a comprehensive understanding of how different countries handle allegations of corruption in the course of...
Press review
10 April 2026
Press Review – Week of 10 April 2026
This week’s press review focuses on the adoption at first reading of the bill to combat social security and tax...
Analysis
9 April 2026
Non-solicitation agreements and anti-competitive practices: A review of the June 11, 2025 decision issued by...
In the context of increased scrutiny by competition authorities of practices affecting labor markets, a webinar organised by the Antitrust...
Press review
3 April 2026
Press Review – Week of 3 April 2026
This week’s press review covers the adoption by the European Parliament of the European Union’s first anti-corruption directive; the expansion...
Event
3 April 2026
Money Laundering in the age of cryptocurrency
Conference on anti-money laundering, presented to students in the Master 2 program in Economic Criminal Law and Compliance at Paris...
2 min
Analysis
31 March 2026
CACEIS Bank: Decision of the AMF Enforcement Committee of December 17, 2025
Following the H2O AM case, which resulted in a sanction against this management company in 2022, the AMF examined the...
Event
30 March 2026
[PAW 2026] The New Geopolitics of Arbitration
Conference on the New Geopolitics of Arbitration, held at the Paris Court of Economic Affairs, as part of the Paris...
2 min
Press review
27 March 2026
Press Review – Week of 27 March 2026
This week’s press review covers the publication by the Direction Générale de la Sécurité Intérieure (DGSI) of a report warning...
Press review
20 March 2026
Press Review – Week of 16 March 2026
This week’s press review covers the ruling of the French Cour de cassation on the so-called “fake bank advisor” fraud;...
Analysis
19 March 2026
Review of the CJIP agreement between HSBC and the PNF for aggravated tax fraud
In the context of the CumCum case, the French National Financial Prosecutor’s Office (PNF) and HSBC Bank plc concluded a...
Press review
13 March 2026
Press Review – Week of 9 March 2026
This week’s press review covers the conviction of the Rocher Group for failure to comply with its duty of vigilance,...
Event
11 March 2026
Paris Arbitration Week 2026 – The fight against bias and noise, which unconsciously cloud the...
Navacelle is hosting a panel on 26 March 2026, as part of the Paris Arbitration Week (PAW).
Event
10 March 2026
Paris Arbitration Week 2026 – Fraus omnia corrumpit… Really? Paris courts and the enforcement of...
Navacelle is hosting a panel regarding Corruption and Arbitration on 24 March 2026, as part of the Paris Arbitration Week (PAW).