Analyse
14 juillet 2020

Enseignements tirés des deux premières décisions de la Commission des sanctions de l’Agence française anticorruption (En anglais)

Bastille Day Newsletter 2020 - Enforcement & Court Decisions

 

The Enforcement Committee of the French Anti-Corruption Agency (“AFA”) [1] issued its first decisions on July 4, 2019 [2] and on February 7, 2020 [3]. In both cases, the decision followed a control carried out by the AFA regarding the existence of breaches of the compliance mechanisms provided for in Article 17 of the law Sapin II [4] . Although no financial sanctions were pronounced, both decisions clarify the AFA Enforcement Committee’s expectations of companies’ compliance program.

 

I. Decisions reflecting the rigorous stance of the French regulator

With respect to Sonepar – a company specialized in electrical equipment distribution –, the AFA’s Director considered that the company risk mapping was too standardized, the code of conduct was irrelevant regarding the risks that should have been identified, third-party evaluation procedures did not comply with legal requirements and were missing internal control and evaluation processes and an efficient accounting control procedure ensuring that accounts were not used for corruption or influence-peddling purposes. With respect to Imerys – a company specialized in the extraction and processing of minerals – the AFA’s Director considered that its risk assessment methodology did not guarantee satisfactory risk identification, that its risk mapping was incomplete and were missing the absence of an appropriate code of conduct and accounting control procedures.

In both decisions, taking up point by point the grievances formulated by the AFA’s Director, the Enforcement Committee assessed the compliance obligations in the light of the legislative provisions.

By the hearing, Sonepar had demonstrated that its risk mapping was being improved, that it had adapted its code of conduct, incorporated new control procedures into its internal control charter and had developed managing tools for relations with third parties and intermediaries. Since the violations were no longer established at the day of the hearing, the Enforcement Committee rejected all grievances raised by the AFA’s Director, and chose not to sanction Sonepar in the absence of serious breaches of the legislative provisions [5]. As for Imerys, the Enforcement Committee requested it to adjust its code of conduct and accounting procedures within a specific time-frame. Neither of the companies was sanctioned financially.

 

II. Specifications regarding the non-binding nature of AFA recommendations and the burden of proof in proceedings opposing the AFA and companies

Both decisions raised interesting points, notably regarding the nature of AFA recommendations, that could be used as potential guidance for companies and AFA controls in the future.

In the Sonepar decision, the Enforcement Committee stated that Sonepar, which was not required to follow the methodology recommended in the AFA recommendations, must be considered as justifying the relevance, quality and effectiveness at the level of the risk mapping that it is responsible for setting up.

In the Imerys decision, the Enforcement Committee did not approve the AFA’s reasoning regarding risk mapping, which requires companies to include a roadmap in their risk mapping, as well as detain a specific and standardized methodology. The Enforcement Committee rejected this argument, on account of the fact that the AFA’s recommendations are only a frame of reference and are thus not binding for companies.

This demonstrates that only breaches provided for by law might be sanctioned and that companies are free to choose their own risk mapping methodology as long as it meets the legislative requirements [6].

Furthermore, the Enforcement Committee distinguished two situations regarding the burden of proof. If a company states to have strictly complied with the AFA’s recommendations, it is presumed to satisfy anticorruption law requirements and the burden of proof lies with the AFA’s Director, who will have “to demonstrate that the company did not, in fact, followed such recommendations”. If a company alleges to have partially satisfied the AFA’s recommendations, it must “demonstrate the relevance, the quality and the effectiveness” of its anticorruption system [7].

These decisions thereby establish that the standard of assessment is that which is set by law and not by AFA recommendations. This being said, AFA recommendations remain an advantageous framework for companies who choose to comply with them.

Contenu similaire

Publication
27 février 2024
Nouvelles obligations de reporting en matière de durabilité pour les entreprises françaises : quelles sont...
Navacelle revient pour The Legal Industry Reviews sur la transposition de la Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) en France par...
Publication
The discreet ramping up of environmental criminal law
5 décembre 2023
La discrète montée en puissance du droit pénal de l’environnement
Navacelle revient pour The Legal Industry Reviews sur la récente et progressive application effective du droit pénal de l’environnement par...
Analyse
UBS
17 novembre 2023
Saga UBS : 2e réévaluation de la sanction financière historique infligée à la banque suisse...
Le 15 novembre 2023, dans le cadre de la saga UBS ayant débutée le 20 février 2019, les juges du...
Revue de presse
12 avril 2024
Revue de presse – Semaine du 8 avril 2024
Cette semaine, la revue de presse revient sur le procès des Panama Papers ouvert ce lundi 8 avril, la condamnation...
Revue de presse
5 avril 2024
Revue de presse – Semaine du 1er avril 2024
Cette semaine, la revue de presse revient sur la condamnation de l’ancien dirigeant de la plateforme de cryptomonnaies FTX par...
Revue de presse
29 mars 2024
Revue de presse – Semaine du 25 mars 2024
Cette semaine, la revue de presse revient sur l’ouverture de procédures à l’encontre de Google, Apple et Meta par la...
Revue de presse
22 mars 2024
Revue de presse – Semaine du 18 mars 2024
Cette semaine, la revue de presse revient sur le rapport de la Cour des comptes concernant la situation financière de...
Revue de presse
15 mars 2024
Revue de presse – Semaine du 11 mars 2024
Cette semaine, la revue de presse revient sur l’application par l’AMF de deux orientations émanant de l’Autorité bancaire européenne, l’adoption...
Actualité
11 mars 2024
Webinaire : Le rôle de l’avocat enquêteur
Stéphane de Navacelle et Julie Zorrilla ont animé une session de formation pour le webinaire du Barreau Entrepreneurial organisé par...
Revue de presse
8 mars 2024
Revue de presse – Semaine du 4 mars 2024
Cette semaine, la revue de presse revient sur la condamnation d’Apple à une amende de 1.8 milliard d’euros par la...
Revue de presse
1 mars 2024
Revue de presse – Semaine du 26 février 2024
Cette semaine, la revue de presse revient sur l’adoption par Washington de nouvelles sanctions contre la Russie, l’implication d’un agent...
Publication
29 février 2024
L’enquête interne façonnée par la déontologie de l’avocat
Contribution de Laura Ragazzi, Julie Zorrilla et Stéphane de Navacelle à l'ouvrage Compliance et droits de la défense, pour les...
Actualité
29 février 2024
Compliance et droits de la défense : Enquête interne, CJIP, CRPC – Éditions Dalloz
L'ouvrage Compliance et droits de la défense, pour les Éditions Dalloz - Lefebvre Dalloz et le Journal of Regulation &...
Analyse
26 février 2024
L’assouplissement du principe de loyauté de la preuve en matière civile – Analyse de l’arrêt...
L’arrêt du 22 décembre 2023 reconnaît l’admissibilité de la preuve obtenue ou produite de manière illicite ou déloyale en matière...