Analysis
14 July 2019

New law & executive orders increase the reach of tax offenses enforcement

Bastille Day Newsletter 2019 - Legislative, Regulatory & Policy Updates

 

In the aftermath of the UBS1 and Cahuzac2 scandals, a law established in October 20183 aims at better identifying and sanctioning fraud, with a focus on aggravated tax fraud.

This is reflected in the reinforcement of resources allocated to the fight against fraud, the facilitating of criminal prosecution and the increase of existing tax sanctions and criminal sentences for offenders.

The law on the fight against fraud reinforces the efficiency of tax fraud investigations

The law on the fight against fraud creates a judicial police service within the Budget Ministry, under the supervision of the judiciary4.

This new judicial police service was set up on July 3, 2019 by the Minister of the Budget, Gérald Darmanin5. There are currently 25 investigators and 40 investigators are to be expected by the fall6.

The tax investigators are competent on French soil, investigate tax fraud, aggravated tax fraud and the laundering of the proceeds of such offenses and have police powers – adversely to tax agents in charge of tax inquiries7. They have in particular the powers to put individuals in police custody and can carry a weapon.

Additionally, new investigative powers are introduced for the judicial tax officers in the French criminal procedure code. They now have access to criminal police history files8 and can liaise with police from other EU Member States in order to exchange information9.

Tax agent access to police powers is counterbalanced by the widened access to tax administration files by other people likely to encounter fraud in the course of their investigative missions. This is a breakthrough in the fight against fraud, as a significant amount of information is protected by tax secrecy. Exchange of tax information is thus facilitated between the different French administrations and in fine to the judiciary.

Bercy shares its power to prosecute tax fraud with the judiciary

Initially, for the prosecution of tax offenses under French law, the Prosecutor first had to obtain the approval of French tax authorities, commonly referred to as “Bercy” to initiate criminal proceedings10. The Bercy monopoly was unlike ordinary criminal procedures and suffered a lot of criticism, as considered an obstacle to the prosecution of tax offences.

The law puts a partial end to the Bercy monopoly as it provides for specific situations where the tax administration must automatically refer the case to the Prosecutor. This is the case (i) for major fraud involving duties above 100 000 euro when the tax administration applied a tax penalty (whether 100%, 80% or 40%)11 (ii) when a tax penalty was applied to a person bound to declare his/her patrimony to the High Authority for the Transparency of Public Life12. In addition, the Bercy monopoly no longer applies when the investigation uncovers new facts concerning the same individual.

The goal is thus to draw a distinction between minor and major fraud. This is in line with the French Constitutional Council position which considered that it is possible to combine a tax penalty and a criminal sentence for the most serious breaches of tax obligations13.

One thousand cases from Bercy were sent to court last year, and the Budget Ministry believes this number could double pursuant to the enactment of this law.

Plea-bargaining and judicial conventions of public interest extended to tax fraud

Another significant legal development introduced by Sapin II law is that the Prosecution can now use negotiated procedures such as plea-bargaining (comparution sur reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité) and the French equivalent of the DPA (convention judiciaire d’intérêt public, “CJIP”) for tax offences. This shows an extension of the negotiation from tax administration to prosecution in tax-related matters.

The law against tax fraud also introduced several others mechanisms to enhance the efficiency of the fight against fraud such as the “Name and Shame” (i.e., the publication of tax sanctions imposed on companies in serious breach of their tax obligations), the establishment of a tax sanction for intermediaries who intentionally help a taxpayer commit tax fraud, the broadening of the tax flagrance procedure, and the tightening of the provisions relating to tax-privileged States and non-cooperative territories.

Related content

Publication
27 February 2024
New sustainability reporting obligations in France: what’s new?
Navacelle contributes to The Legal Industry Reviews' fifth edition about the transposition of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) in...
Publication
The discreet ramping up of environmental criminal law
5 December 2023
The discreet ramping up of environmental criminal law
Navacelle contributes to The Legal Industry Reviews' fourth edition about recent gradual application of environmental criminal law in France, with...
Analysis
UBS
17 November 2023
Saga UBS: second reassessment of the UBS’s historic financial penalty
On November 15, 2023, as part of the UBS saga that began on 20 February 2019, the judges on the...
Analysis
22 April 2024
Focus on the CJIPs respectively concluded at the end 2023 by ADP INGENIERIE and SEVES...
By approving the CJIPs signed between the National financial prosecutor’s office (procureur national financier - PNF) as well as ADP...
Press review
19 April 2024
Press review – Week of 15 April 2024
This week, the press review covers the publication of TRACFIN’s 2023 report on professionals’ suspicious transaction reports, the decision of...
Analysis
16 April 2024
Overview of the “anti-gift” procedure applicable to actors operating in the health sector in the...
The “anti-gift” procedure provided by the French public health code prohibits actors operating in the health sector, except for some...
Press review
12 April 2024
Press review – Week of 8 April 2024
This week, the press review covers the Panama Papers trial which opened on Monday, 8 April, the decision rendered against...
Press review
5 April 2024
Press review – Week of 1 April 2024
This week, the press review covers the conviction by the American justice system of the crypto assets platform FTX‘s former...
Publication
1 April 2024
The Validity of Arbitral Awards and the Public Policy Nature of International Sanctions
This article by Stéphane de Navacelle, Julie Zorrilla and Gregory Arnoult, is part of the Transnational Dispute Management (TDM) Special...
Press review
29 March 2024
Press review – Week of 25 March 2024
This week, the press review covers the opening of proceedings against Google, Apple and Meta by the European Commission for...
Press review
22 March 2024
Press review – Week of 18 March 2024
This week, the press review covers the report of the French Court of Auditors on the financial situation of the...
Press review
15 March 2024
Press review – Week of 11 March 2024
This week’s press review covers the implementation by the AMF of two guidelines issued by the European Banking Authority, the...
News
11 March 2024
Webinar: The role of the investigating lawyer (in French)
Stéphane de Navacelle and Julie Zorrilla discussed the role of the investigating lawyer during the Paris Bar's Entrepreneurial Bar training...
Press review
8 March 2024
Press review – Week of 4 March 2024
This week’s press review covers the conviction of Apple to a 1.8 billion euros fine by the European Commission for...
Press review
1 March 2024
Press review – Week of 26 February 2024
This week’s press review covers Washington's adoption of new sanctions against Russia, the involvement of a French municipal agent in...