Analyse
14 juillet 2020

Les principaux enseignements des CJIP de l’année écoulée (En anglais)

Bastille Day Newsletter 2020 - Enforcement & Court Decisions

 

Since the entry into force of the Sapin II law, ten Conventions Judiciaires d’Intérêt Public

 

I. The Airbus CJIP paves the way for increasinly collaborative transactional justice

On January 31, 2020, the Tribunal of Paris approved the CJIP between the European company Airbus and the PNF, for corruption of public officials. Airbus agreed to pay a fine of 2,083,137,455 euros. This amount is part of a total fine of 3.6 billion euros shared with the US Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the British Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) [1]. This CJIP is coupled with a three years compliance monitoring carried out by the French Anti-Corruption Agency (“AFA”). It was clarified by the AFA however, that the Airbus compliance program had been completed and its deployment was being monitored.

The multi-jurisdictional investigation relating to Airbus led to investigative measures in over twenty countries [2] and was carried out in large part by a joint PNF/SFO team. The investigation revealed that repeated illegal and non-compliant practices were implemented by commercial intermediaries hired by Airbus to negotiate with governmental and private customers and obtain new contracts. Financial and in-kind incentives were offered or provided to foreign airline executives and public officials, through the entity which oversaw the group business development activities called Airbus Strategy and Marketing Organization (“SMO”).

The National Financial Prosecutor, Jean-François Bohnert, described this CJIP as “an exceptional moment […], because it is the result of exceptional proceedings”. Indeed, the extraordinary nature of these proceedings can be explained by several factors:

First, the novelty and exemplary nature of Airbus’ cooperation. Airbus decided to fully cooperate with the authorities and disclosed many documents and elements from its internal investigation. Deputy Financial Prosecutor, Eric Russo, referred to a relationship of trust between the investigators and Airbus’ lawyers, while specifying that “trust does not mean complacency”. While this does not mean that the PNF acted as the company’s lawyer nor that the company lawyers undertook the role of the prosecutors, all parties acted willingly to work constructively and compromise. Airbus’ efforts have been rewarded by its foreseen penalty being cut in half. This will be likely to encourage greater cooperation from future companies.

Secondly, the content of the investigation. Three and a half years of investigating, with 30 million documents to be analyzed, some 40 former executives and employees interviewed by the OCLCIFF, many raids including at former Airbus executives’ residences and requests for mutual assistance in Switzerland, Lebanon, and Latvia, was an extremely costly procedure.

Thirdly, the role of the PNF and the AFA along with the DOJ and the SFO. The appointment of monitors raised a question of sovereignty and protection of the France’s economic interest, on account of the risk of transmitting sensitive information. The DOJ and SFO agreed to waive the designation of their own monitor in favor of the AFA, that is to monitor the deployment of the compliance program. It confirms that “France has both the knowledge and the ability” to do so.

This first experience of full cooperation was significant also because of the tripartite collaboration between the company, investigators and magistrates as the internal investigation was led in cooperation with the authorities, as well as the coordinated action of three prosecuting authorities.

This CJIP which took place on the sixth anniversary of the PNF, is a major step forward for collaborative justice. It enables the French justice system to recover its full powers. This is illustrated by the preponderant place of the PNF in the investigation and the allocation of more than two thirds of the fine to the French state. It also marks the international recognition of French jurisdiction in matters of economic and financial delinquency and paves the way for multi-jurisdictional resolutions.

 

II. The Google CJIP is a sign of the fight against tax fraud

On September 3, 2019, Google’s French and Irish subsidiaries concluded a CJIP with the PNF on charges of tax fraud and complicity of tax fraud [3]. This is the second CJIP in relation to tax fraud since the law of 23 October 2018 extended this mechanism to this offense [4]. Google, which was already sued in several countries and had to conclude several hundred million euro agreements with the tax authorities of the United Kingdom and Italy, agreed to pay a public interest fine of 500 million euros in return for the termination of criminal proceedings [5].

The dispute started after allegations from the French tax authorities stated that Google France, a subsidiary of the US company Google LLC, was a French permanent establishment of the European headquarters Google Ireland Ltd, based in Ireland. Google France considered a contrario that all its activities were carried out from Ireland, where income tax is much lower than in France.

Google won the case before the Paris Administrative Court in July 2017 and before the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal in April 2019 [6]. These decisions did not recognize the existence of a permanent establishment in France and reversed the corporate tax reassessment for the period 2005-2010. The Ministry of Action and Public Finance then brought the case before the French Administrative Supreme Court (Conseil d’État).

As a matter of caution, Google chose a negotiated approach and concluded a CJIP.

This CJIP was jointly negotiated by Google, the PNF and the tax authorities, which extinguished both the legal proceedings and the tax disputes from 2005 to 2018, opened in France against Google. In addition to the 500 million euros fine, 465 million euros were thereby paid to the tax authorities and closed the procedure for the company’s tax reassessment.

This amount has been determined in compliance with the proportionality principle set by the French Constitutional Council (<em) with respect to the combination of criminal fines with tax sanctions [7]. Indeed, the CJIP recalls the rule according to which “the combination of criminal and tax penalties is permitted where the total amount of any penalties applied does not exceed the highest amount of one of the penalties incurred [8].”</em

This agreement between Google and the PNF owes much to the political context of taxation of multinationals and the French willingness to respond to the imperative of tax fairness. For that matter, even though Google’s permanent establishment in France has yet to be recognized, the digital giant will be subject from now on to a new tax on its digital services, the GAFA tax [9].

Contenu similaire

Analyse
La 32e chambre correctionnelle du tribunal judiciaire de Paris se prononce pour la première fois en matière de délit de manipulation de marché
7 juillet 2023
La 32e chambre correctionnelle du tribunal judiciaire de Paris se prononce pour la première fois...
Le 25 mai 2023, la 32e chambre correctionnelle du tribunal judiciaire de Paris a rendu sa première décision en matière...
Événement
Formation enquête interne - CY Université
3 avril 2023
La conduite des auditions dans le cadre d’une enquête interne
Mise en lumière des difficultés relatives à la conduite des entretiens tant du côté des personnes auditionnées que des personnes...
Revue de presse
Revue de presse
29 septembre 2023
Revue de presse – Semaine du 25 septembre 2023
Cette semaine, la revue de presse Navacelle revient sur l’abrogation d’une disposition du code de procédure pénale par le Conseil...
Revue de presse
Revue de presse
22 septembre 2023
Revue de presse – Semaine du 18 septembre 2023
Cette semaine, la revue de presse Navacelle revient sur l’adoption de la huitième version de la directive européenne sur la...
Analyse
La Cour de cassation reconnaît à la justice française la compétence universelle dans le cadre de crimes commis en Syrie.
18 septembre 2023
La Cour de cassation reconnaît à la justice française la compétence universelle dans le cadre...
Dans deux arrêts du 12 mai 2023, la Cour de cassation précise les conditions dans lesquelles la justice française a...
Revue de presse
revue de presse
15 septembre 2023
Revue de presse – Semaine du 11 septembre 2023
Cette semaine, la revue de presse Navacelle revient sur la décision remarquée d’un juge de la Cour Suprême brésilienne annulant...
Revue de presse
Revue de presse
8 septembre 2023
Revue de presse – Semaine du 4 septembre 2023
Cette semaine, la revue de presse Navacelle revient sur le guide publié par la Commission européenne à l’intention des opérateurs...
Actualité
Bastille day newsletter 2023
14 juillet 2023
Bastille Day Newsletter 2023
En ce 14 juillet, l’équipe Navacelle vous propose, comme chaque année, une sélection d'événements marquants survenus en France au cours...
Analyse
13 juillet 2023
Panorama de jurisprudence en droit de l’arbitrage
La jurisprudence française rendue au cours de l’année écoulée s’est notamment prononcée sur le régime d’exécution de sentences dans le...
Publication
13 juillet 2023
[Infographie] Focus sur l’activité de la Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés...
L’activité contentieuse de la CNIL des derniers mois met en lumière les très lourdes sanctions financières imposées aux GAFAM, en...
Publication
13 juillet 2023
[Infographie] Focus sur l’activité de l’Autorité des marchés financiers
L’activité répressive de l’AMF, toujours soutenue, démontre cette année encore l’ambition du régulateur de renforcer constamment la surveillance des marchés...
Publication
13 juillet 2023
[Infographie] Focus sur les Conventions judiciaires d’intérêt public
Depuis sa création par la loi Sapin II du 9 décembre 2016, la Convention judiciaire d’intérêt public (CJIP) a démontré...
Analyse
13 juillet 2023
Le Défenseur des droits publie son nouveau guide destiné aux lanceurs d’alerte et à leur...
Le 30 mars 2023, un an après la loi du 21 mars 2022 visant à améliorer la protection des lanceurs...
Analyse
13 juillet 2023
Affaire Thales : la Cour de cassation renforce la protection des lanceurs d’alerte contre les...
Dans cet arrêt, la Cour de cassation conclut que le juge des référés doit prendre toute mesure qui s’impose pour...