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, 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.

Related content

Publication
The Practitioner’s Guide to Global Investigations - 7th Edition
13 January 2023
Navacelle co-authors GIR of the Practitioner’s Guide to Global Investigations – 7th edition
NAVACELLE co-authors the French chapter of the seventh edition of Global Investigations Review’s Practitioner’s Guide to Global Investigations.
Analysis
Lobbying : Declaration obligations of interest representatives in France
14 July 2022
Lobbying: Declaration obligations of interest representatives in France
Highlight on the disclosure obligations imposed on interest representatives in France, as provided for by Law 2013-907 of October 11,...
Publication
The Guide to Sanctions -GIR (2022)
10 July 2022
The Guide to Sanctions (2022) – GIR
Navacelle co-author of the third edition of the Global Investigation Review's Guide to Sanctions.
News
Le monde du droit - Roxane Castro
2 February 2023
Le monde du droit announces the arrival of Roxane Castro as Counsel
Navacelle strengthens its regulatory litigation practice with the arrival of Roxane Castro
Event
2 February 2023
ICC Mexico – Sapin II and France’s efforts to tackle corruption
Stéphane de Navacelle is invited by the ICC of México to talk about the Sapin II law and France's efforts...
Event
CERAS - Violence, symptom or system
30 January 2023
“Violence, symptom or system? Naming, confronting, overcoming”.
Discover Stéphane de Navacelle's testimony during the annual session of the Ceras - Centre de Recherches et d'Actions Sociales.
Press review
Press review - Week of 23 january 2023
27 January 2023
Press review – Week of 23 January 2023
In this week’s press review, you will find two cases which were dismissed, one concerning the defective management of the...
News
Roxane Castro
26 January 2023
Navacelle strengthens its regulatory litigation practice with the arrival of Roxane Castro
With an international culture and a multidisciplinary team led by Stéphane de Navacelle and Julie Zorrilla, Navacelle continues to develop...
Publication
25 January 2023
Overview of the AFA’s survey regarding French companies’ anti-corruption systems
On 30 September 2022, the French Anti-Corruption Agency published the results of its second survey of French companies’ anti-corruption systems....
Analysis
24 January 2023
Sanctioning obstructions to AMF investigations: Update from the Constitutional Court in its decision of 28 January 2022
On 28 January 2022, the Constitutional Court ruled that Article L. 621-15, II, f of the Monetary and Financial Code...
Press review
Week of 16 January 2023
20 January 2023
Press review – Week of 16 January 2023
This week press review includes the latest news on criminal law, business criminal law and criminal procedure. Thus, this review...
Press review
Press review - Week of 9 january 2023
13 January 2023
Press review – Week of 9 January 2023
This week in the press review, a dismissal of the Chlordecone case in the French West Indies and a $17.2...
Event
The fundamental rights of the company - AIJA
12 January 2023
[Roundtable] The fundamental rights of the company
Stéphane de Navacelle participated in the French-speaking conference on fundamental rights in business organised by AIJA on Friday 13 January 2023.
Press review
Week of 2 January 2023
6 January 2023
Press review – Week of 2 January 2023
This week in the press review, two Members of the European Parliament have been subjected to immunity waiver proceedings in...