Analysis
14 July 2020

Lesson drawn from the two first decisions of the Enforcement Committee of the French Anti-corruption Agency

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, 20192 and on February 7, 20203. 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 II4. 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 provisions5. 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 requirements6.

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 system7.

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.

Related content

Analysis
Proposition Loi Gauvain
20 October 2021
Analysis of the bill to reinforce the fight against corruption by Deputy Gauvain
Navacelle team has examined the “Bill to reinforce the fight against corruption” which has just been submitted by the Deputy Raphaël Gauvain at the National Assembly...
Julie Zorrilla
Partner Navacelle
Alexandre Coudreau
Student Sciences Po
Salomé Garnier
Associate Navacelle
News
19 October 2021
New decision in the jurisprudential saga in the field of arbitration and corruption
Navacelle team would like to inform you of a new decision in the jurisprudential saga in the field of arbitration and corruption.
Salomé Garnier
Associate Navacelle
Events
14 October 2021
The French criminal procedural law
Thomas Lapierre, associate at Navacelle presents the main elements of the French criminal procedural law for #LAWYEREX by European Lawyers Foundation.
Thomas Lapierre
Associate Navacelle
News
5 October 2021
Report of the Independent Commission on Sexual Abuse in the French Church
After two and a half years of work, the CIASE has submitted its report with the aim of understanding and analysing situations of sexual abuse of minors in the Catholic Fr...
Events
29 September 2021
Paris Legal Makers 2021
The first Paris Legal Makers conference dedicated to economic development through law will take place on 6 December 2021 at the Palais Brongniart.
News
27 September 2021
Update of French Financial Market Regulator (AMF) of its control charters (in French)
This update specifies the procedures for carrying out control missions, the principles of good conduct followed by those in charge of a control as well as the behavior ex...
News
27 September 2021
Update of French Financial Market Regulator (AMF) of its investigation charters (in French)
This update specifies the procedures for carrying out investigation missions, the principles of good conduct followed by those in charge of an investigation as well as th...
News
16 September 2021
The French DPA (“Convention judiciaire d’intérêt public”) on the way to simplification
On 4 August 2021, a new Decree was promulgated aiming to simplify formalities required for the conclusion of the CJIP between Public Prosecutors Office and the legal pers...
Julie Zorrilla
Partner Navacelle
Louis Beltaire
Trainee lawyer
Alexandre Desevedavy
Trainee lawyer
Salomé Garnier
Associate Navacelle
Publication
3 September 2021
The European Parliament Lays the Foundations of a Corporate Due Diligence and Corporate Accountability
Julie Zorrilla, Thomas Lapierre and Stéphane de Navacelle, highlight for the International Bar Association anticorrpution news, the adoption on 10 March 2021 by the Memb...
Stéphane de Navacelle
Managing partner Navacelle
Julie Zorrilla
Partner Navacelle
Thomas Lapierre
Associate Navacelle
Publication
20 August 2021
It’s not an “ego fight”: The do’s and don’ts of monitorships
Experts from around the world discuss what authorities, companies and monitors should do to ensure that a period of compliance oversight ends successfully. “the quality...
Julie Zorrilla
Partner Navacelle
Adam Dobrik
Journalist
Analysis
14 July 2021
The in-house attorney status in France: a bygone idea or an emerging one?
Bastille Day Newsletter 2021 - Legislative, Regulatory & Policy Updates
Publication
14 July 2021
Bastille Day Newsletter 2021
Happy 2021 Bastille Day! Lawyers at Navacelle thought you might be interested in reviewing a selection we made of noticeable events which occurred in France in the fiel...
Stéphane de Navacelle
Managing partner Navacelle
Julie Zorrilla
Partner Navacelle
Clémentine Duverne
Partner Navacelle