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

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
9 June 2023
Press review – Week of 5 June 2023
This week's press review details the suspicions of favoritism hanging over Olivier Dussopt, Minister of Labor, Employment and Integration, and...
Press review
Press review
2 June 2023
Press review – Week of 29 May 2023
This week, the 32nd chamber of the Paris judicial court handed down its first conviction for price manipulation against Thierry...
Press review
press review
26 May 2023
Press review – Week of 22 May 2023
This week, the Parquet national financier (PNF - National Financial Prosecutor's Office) signed its 16th and 17th Convention Judiciaire d'Intérêt...
23 May 2023
The French Minister for Public Accounts announces a plan to fight tax fraud
During a senatorial debate, after the publication by the Finance Commission of a report on the fight against tax fraud,...
Press review
press reveiw
15 May 2023
Press review – Week of 15 May 2023
This week in the news, the ECHR validated the sharing of phone taps from the prosecutor to the antitrust authority...
Press review
press review
12 May 2023
Press review – Week of 8 May 2023
This week in the news, François Ruffin was dismissed by the ECHR, and a judicial investigation was opened for suspicions...
Press review
White Collar Crime Compliance Press review
5 May 2023
Press review – Week of 01 May 2023
This week in the news, the Paris prosecutor's office signed a DPA with a Spanish bank, and Anticor is investigating...
3 May 2023
The impact of international sanctions in international litigation and arbitration
International sanctions, which are political, diplomatic and public international law measures also impact commercial relationships. Navacelle summarizes their consequences on...
Press review
Press review
28 April 2023
Press review – Week of 24 April 2023
In this press review, the National Financial Prosecutor’s Office (PNF) searched the premises of the Member of Parliament Pierre Morel-A-L’Huissier...
DPA ABA 2023
26 April 2023
Deferred Prosecution Agreements and how much do they shield from litigation and arbitration?
During the American Bar Association International Law Section 2023 conference, Stéphane de Navacelle will discuss Corporate criminal liability frameworks which...
Press review
Press review
21 April 2023
Press review – Week of 17 April 2023
In this week’s press review, on the international level, ecocide has been recognized by the European Parliament, the United States...
Guide to Corporate Internal Investigations
21 April 2023
Guide to Corporate Internal Investigations by the American Bar Association
Julie Zorrilla and Stéphane de Navacelle contribute to the International Guide to Corporate Internal Investigations by the American Bar Association....