14 July 2019

UBS conviction: lessons learned from the decision that made France a “B” – as in Billions – country

Bastille Day Newsletter 2019 - Enforcement / Court Decisions


On February 20, 2019, the Swiss company UBS AG, its French subsidiary and five former representatives was sentenced by the Paris Criminal court (Tribunal Correctionnel) to a 3.7 billion euros fine and to 800 million euros in damages to the French State for unauthorized banking solicitation, aggravated tax fraud and money laundering1 (UBS AG had neither the authorization to prospect, nor to exercise banking activities in France) but also for tax fraud2 and aggravated money laundering3 for having organized illicit transfers from Swiss undeclared accounts to offshore accounts between 2004 and 2012. UBSF was prosecuted in parallel proceedings as an accessory to both offenses.

The proof that a settled agreement is always the best strategy?

Although not reflected in the Paris Tribunal decision, UBS previously entered discussions with the National Financial Prosecutor4 (“PNF”) to explore a negotiated alternative with a Convention Judiciaire d’Intérêt Public (“CJIP”).

Indeed, UBS was offered a CJIP that would have requested the company to pay an amount in the ballpark of 1 billion euros in return for a monitoring period followed by the probable dismissal of all charges.

This offer was considered as an excessive financial burden by UBS who rejected it. The choice to leave it to the courts results in a considerably higher payout, a staggering financial loss for the bank, raising the question of the judicial strategy that prosecuted companies should adopt in such cases.

The UBS case is a signal that the French authorities – and the PNF in particular – intend to show a more hardline approach that has a real impact on companies that violate French law.

However, it would be a mistake to conclude that this decision shows that companies should always accept a CJIP. By opting to refuse the CJIP, UBS took a risk, but chose to let the legal debate run its course.

If the prosecution’s narrative can be challenged, the trial could be the better solution. The decision to opt for one or the other needs to be taken after weighing the pros and cons. In the process of a cooperation with the authorities for instance, defendants have no guarantee that the documents and information communicated will not be used at a later stage, in case of failure of the CJIP.

Either way, criminal trials will always be subject to uncertainty. UBS counsel has appealed the trial decision.

Related content

Conseil Constitutionnel
5 October 2023
Fillon saga: Procedural victory before the French Constitutional Council for the former prime minister in...
In response to an application for a priority preliminary ruling on the issue of constitutionality (“question prioritaire de constitutionnalité”), the...
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...
Colloque CNB médiation, compliance & vigilance
4 December 2023
Mediation vs compliance and vigilance duties roundtable
Stéphane de Navacelle took part in a Compliance, vigilance and mediation seminar on Novembre 30, 2023.
Press review
1 December 2023
Press review – Week of 27 November 2023
This week’s press review looks back at the criminal proceedings against Olivier Dussopt, Minister of Labor, Eric Dupond-Moretti, Minister of...
Press review
24 November 2023
Press review – Week of 20 November 2023
This week, the press review looks back at the criminal proceedings opened against Senator Joël Guerriau, former Socialist Party First...
Formation EFB Navacelle - Session 3/10
23 November 2023
Defining the scope of the internal investigation: internal investigation sources and the investigation plan
EFB Degree - Internal investigation (3/10) What criteria need to be considered when deciding whether to carry out an internal...
ABA International Law Section
21 November 2023
Practical tips when dealing with corruption allegations in arbitration
Navacelle contributes to the American Bar Association International Arbitration Committee's Quarterly Newsletter (Q3 2023).
Press review
Press review Navacelle
17 November 2023
Press review – Week of 13 November 2023
This week, the press review looks back at the criminal proceedings against Bashar Al-Assad, leader of Syria, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, former...
Revue Justice Actualités #28
13 November 2023
Internal Investigation and Negotiated Justice (in French)
Can internal investigation be used to negotiate the investigation phase with prosecuting authorities? An article in French, by Guillaume Daieff, Stéphane...
Press review
10 November 2023
Press review – Week of 6 November 2023
This week, the press review looks back at the trials of the former deputy director of the Bordeaux Criminal Investigation...
GIR Guide to Sanctions - Navacelle 2023
8 November 2023
The Guide to Sanctions (2023) – GIR
Navacelle co-author of the fourth edition of the Global Investigation Review's Guide to Sanctions.
Press review
Press review - Week of 30 October 2023
3 November 2023
Press review – Week of 30 October 2023
This week, the Navacelle press review looks back at Altice's filing of a civil action in the criminal proceedings in...
Navacelle - IBA Paris 2023
2 November 2023
2023 IBA Annual Conference – Paris – Host Committe reception
As a member of the Host Committee, Navacelle co-hosted the Host Committee Reception for the International Bar Association (IBA) 2023...