Introduction

Matrix organization

Mergers by absorption

Risks related to the expansion of the scope of criminal liability of legal entities

Validity conditions

Proof of delegation

Exemption from individual liability of delegator

Attribution of offense to legal entity

Delegations of authority

Criminal risk management within business organizations

Complicity in crimes against humanity

Breaches of secrecy

Personal data breaches

Theft

Extortion

Blackmail

Fraud

Misappropriation

Receiving/concealment of unlawfully obtained property (recel)

Attacks on automated data processing systems

Money laundering

Misappropriation by public official (concussion)

Corruption and influence peddling

Unlawful acquisition of an interest

Favoritism

Forgery and use of forgeries

Violation of Criminal Code

Offenses under the Monetary and Financial Code

Offenses under the Commercial Code

Environmental Code violations

Offenses arising from other codes

Types of offenses

Offenses under the Criminal Code, the Commercial Code, or the Environmental Code, Criminal procedure

White Collar Crime (en cours)

Like public corruption, public influence peddling takes two different forms: Article 432-11, 2° of the Criminal Code punishes the solicitation or acceptance by a public official of offers, promises, gifts, presents, or any advantages, for themselves or for others, in order to abuse or having abused their real or supposed influence (passive influence peddling) , while Article 433-1 prohibits the ac …

Public influence peddling

Like public corruption, public influence peddling takes two different forms: Article 432-11, 2° of the Criminal Code punishes the solicitation or acceptance by a public official of offers, promises, gifts, presents, or any advantages, for themselves or for others, in order to abuse or having abused their real or supposed influence (passive influence peddling) , while Article 433-1 prohibits the act of proposing or granting, without right, said advantages to a public official, for themselves or for others, so that they abuse, or because they have abused, their real or supposed influence (active influence peddling) .

In both cases, the public official acts as an intermediary by abusing their influence to obtain distinctions, jobs, contracts, or any other favorable decision from a public authority or administration. The influence alleged or claimed by the intermediary in question must be characterized by the court . However, it is irrelevant that the person does not themselves have any decision-making power , as long as they participate in a public service mission . Finally, the objective of the offense, in both its forms, is to obtain or have obtained distinctions, jobs, contracts, or any other favorable decision from a public authority or administration. This is the case when the president of a company responsible for responding to tenders monetizes their network of influence and address book to secure a contract for a company through interventions with various civil and military authorities , when a former ministerial advisor is tasked with smoothing over any difficulties related to the execution of a contract with a public administration to secure a contract for a company through interventions with various civil and military authorities , when the deputy mayor, delegated to the public procurement commission, benefits from funds from the slush fund of a company dependent on a public contract award decision , when a police lieutenant receives a check to facilitate the release from pre-trial detention of a person under investigation , or when the defendant obtains numerous supply and maintenance contracts through intermediaries , or attempts, through the intervention of a chief collector, to prevent prosecutions . Conversely, one cannot be accused of seeking to obtain a favorable decision if they have undertaken work despite the lack of pre-authorization .

The Law of 30 June 2000  established, alongside the ordinary law offense, a specific regime for foreign public officials. Article 435-2 of the Criminal Code punishes passive influence peddling by foreign public officials, which involves anyone soliciting or accepting, without right, directly or indirectly, offers, promises, gifts, presents, or any advantages, for themselves or for others, to abuse or having abused their real or supposed influence, with the aim of obtaining distinctions, jobs, contracts, or any other favorable decision from a person holding public authority, entrusted with a public service mission, or vested with a public elective mandate in a foreign state or within an international public organization. Article 435-4 punishes active influence peddling by foreign public officials, which involves anyone proposing or granting, under the same conditions, said advantages, for them to abuse or because they have abused their real or supposed influence, with the aim of obtaining distinctions, jobs, contracts, or any other favorable decision from a foreign public official.

Cass. crim., 30 October 1995, LawLex202200008574JBJ; 8 January 1998, LawLex202200009477JBJ; 18 April 2000, LawLex202200008448JBJ; 15 November 2000, LawLex202300011707JBJ; 27 February 2002, LawLex202200008490JBJ; 15 December 2004, LawLex202300011706JBJ; 20 April 2005, LawLex202200003380JBJ; CA Paris, 23 November 2005, LawLex202300011723JBJ; 25 January 2007, LawLex202300011713JBJ; Cass. crim., 16 November 2011, LawLex202300002511JBJ; 4 April 2012, LawLex202200008450JBJ; 1 March 2017, LawLex202200009267JBJ.

Cass. crim., 4 July 1974, LawLex202200003417JBJ; 20 March 1997, LawLex202200008076JBJ; 10 March 2004, LawLex202200010270JBJ; Paris, 25 January 2007, LawLex202300011713JBJ; Cass. crim., 19 March 2008, LawLex202200009495JBJ; CJIP, 15 May 2023, LawLex202300011666JBJ; 29 November 2023, LawLex202400002361JBJ, LawLex202400002362JBJ and LawLex202400002364JBJ.

Cass. crim., 20 March 1997, LawLex202200008076JBJ.

Cass. crim., 3 April 2019, LawLex202200009411JBJ.

Law No 2000-595 of 30 June 2000 amending the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, relating to the fight against corruption, Art. 2, JORF 1 July 2000.

Cass. crim., 1 October 1984, LawLex202200009476JBJ.

Cass. crim., 27 February 2002, LawLex202200008490JBJ; 12 June 2014, LawLex202200008447JBJ. See also, when the opinion given, although advisory, can be considered as decisive, Cass. crim., 15 November 2000, LawLex202300011707JBJ.

Cass. crim., 23 January 1973, LawLex202200007915JBJ, holding that legal auxiliaries fall into the category of persons entrusted with a public service mission who may be charged with the offense of influence peddling; 6 October 2004, LawLex202200007914JBJ, emphasizing that any public official in office within a public administration exercises public authority prerogatives or a public service mission.

Cass. crim., 4 May 2011, LawLex202200010273JBJ.

Cass. crim., 19 March 2008, LawLex202200009495JBJ.

Cass. crim., 8 January 1998, LawLex202200009477JBJ.

Cass. crim., 18 April 2000 LawLex202200008448JBJ.

Cass. crim., 10 March 2004, LawLex202200010270JBJ.

White Collar Crime (en cours)

128. Public influence peddling

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

128. Public influence peddling

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise