Analysis
14 July 2017

Double Jeopardy – Cumulation of criminal and administrative penalties

Bastille Day Newsletter 2017 - Legislative Updates

 

Cumulation of criminal and administrative penalties

On March 30, 2017, Paris’ Criminal Court refused to convict the company “Altran” and several of its former executives for ‟forgery and use of forged documentsˮ, ‟dissemination of misleading informationˮ and ‟inaccurate financial statementsˮ, considering that if criminal offences were characterized, prosecution was barred by reason of a first conviction handed down by the French Financial Market Authority (AMF) in 2007.

This recent decision follows the progressive evolution of domestic case law, protective of legal certainty and inspired by European decisions.

Since 2013, the Court of Justice of the European Union has prohibited the cumulation of criminal and administrative penalties equivalent to criminal sanctions on the ground of Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Åklagaren v. Åkerberg Fransson, February 26, 2013).

This jurisprudential stance was quickly confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights (Grande Stevens v. Italia, March 4, 2014) on the grounds of Article 4 of the Additional Protocol No 7 of the Convention, and by the French Constitutional Council (John L. and others, March 18, 2015) which considered double jeopardy as unconstitutional in stock market matters –pending EADS proceedings for insider trading.

These decisions repealed de facto the French Supreme Court’s position which held, in a decision of January 22, 2014 that the achievement of general interest objectives recognized by the European Union allowed not to extend the scope of non bis in idem protection in stock market matters.

Cumulation of criminal and tax penalties

The scope of the non bis in idem principle, however, does not extend to the case of criminal and tax penalties, as held by the French Constitutional Council in its preliminary ruling on constitutionality (question prioritaire de constitutionnalité) on June 24, 2016 in the Cahuzac and Wildenstein cases.

Double jeopardy may hence apply for the most serious cases, the threshold of seriousness depending on ‟the amount of the evaded or defrauded duties, the nature of the prosecuted person’s behaviors or the circumstances of its interventionˮ.

By a landmark decision on February 22, 2017, the French Supreme Court confirmed the possibility of cumulating criminal and tax penalties by explicitly specifying that the prohibition of double jeopardy for the same facts may only be raised when offences fall within the jurisdiction of criminal courts.

This decision is in line with European case law (Åklagaren c/ Hans Åkerberg Fransson, ibid) according to which the non bis in idem principle does not preclude Member States from pronouncing tax and criminal sanctions for the same facts – violation of VAT reporting obligations – insofar as the tax penalty is not deemed criminal in nature.

In its decision on November 15, 2016 (A. and B. v/ Norway), the European Court of Human Rights, however, indicated that double jeopardy was only allowed when it resulted from an integrated, perfectly organized and predictable system – tax increase in administrative proceedings and conviction for tax fraud in criminal proceedings – and when both proceedings were linked by ‟a sufficiently close material or temporal connectionˮ.

Non bis in idem and guilty plea / DPA

French protection against double jeopardy also extends at the international level and several recent decisions confirmed that the non bis in idem principle applies to guilty-pleas entered into in the United States of America (Paris Court of Appeal, September 21, 2016) or to DPAs (Paris Criminal Court, Oil for food II, June 18, 2015), such agreement qualifying as a judgment under French law.

Similarly, it is most likely that the prohibition of double jeopardy will apply under the provisions of the new Sapin II law for transparency, the fight against corruption and the modernization of economic life providing for a French DPA (convention judiciaire d’intérêt public) in case of probity offences (corruption, influence peddling, etc.).

Related content

Analysis
CumEx files
13 January 2022
CumEx files, from tax optimization to tax fraud?
A look back at the revelations of the "CumEx files" and key take aways on these practices of tax optimization...
Press review
Press review - Week of 27 March 2022
31 March 2023
Press review – Week of 27 March 2023
In this week's press review, Navacelle piggybacks on the raids of several banks in Paris and La Défense as part...
Analysis
29 March 2023
Arbitration between Alstom & ABL: the Versailles Court of Appeal confirms the exequatur on 14 March 2023
Following a lengthy legal battle between Alstom and ABL, the Versailles Court of Appeal approved the 30 March 2016,...
Event
will the recent French case law harm the position of Paris as preferred arbitral seat
29 March 2023
Will the recent French case law harm the position of Paris as preferred arbitral seat?
For Paris Arbitration Week 2023, Navacelle’s Arbitration team invites you to participate in its round table on the following topic...
Press review
Press review - Week of 20 March 2022
24 March 2023
Press review – Week of 20 March 2023
In this week’s press review, Navacelle looks at the arrest warrant issued by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court...
Publication
LIR - Second edition - Greenwashing
21 March 2023
Boosting the fight against greenwashing in France
In the recent years, French rulemakers, regulators and the judicial system have contributed to strengthen the fight against greenwashing.
Press review
Press review - Week of 13 March 2022
17 March 2023
Press review – Week of 13 March 2023
This week in the press review, first in criminal business law, Pakistani investor Arif Naqvi lost his appeal against extradition...
Analysis
15 March 2023
US FinCEN issues new rule on beneficial ownership reporting under the Corporate Transparency Act
As of January 1, 2024, companies operating in the United States will be required to report information about their beneficial...
Press review
10 March 2023
Press review – Week of 6 March 2023
This week in the press review, HVI Cat Canyon Inc. has been ordered to pay more than 65 million dollars...
Analysis
9 March 2023
Historical sanctions by the Financial Markets Authority
The Financial Markets Authority’s Enforcement Committee imposes record-breaking fines on a British asset management company and two of its executives...
Press review
Press review - Week of 27 February 2023
2 March 2023
Press review – Week of 27 February 2023
This week in the press review, the Minister of Public Accounts visited the United States to discuss improving tax cooperation....
Press review
Press review - Week of 20 February 2023
24 February 2023
Press review – Week of 20 February 2023
This week in the press review, Navacelle focuses on the cancelation of a record fine against Swiss laboratories for anti-competitive...
Press review
Press review - Week of 13 February 2023
17 February 2023
Press review – Week of 13 February 2023
This week in the press review, Shell executives were accused of endangering the company’s sustainability. German authorities raided companies suspected...