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)

Introduced by the Sapin II law and enshrined in Article 41-1-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Judicial Public Interest Agreement (CJIP - convention judiciaire d’intérêt public) constitutes an alternative to prosecution based on a settlement-based approach, which can benefit legal entities, whether public  or private, regardless of their size, legal form, sector of activity, or nationality, …

Judicial Public Interest Agreement (deferred prosecution agreement)

Introduced by the Sapin II law and enshrined in Article 41-1-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Judicial Public Interest Agreement (CJIP - convention judiciaire d’intérêt public) constitutes an alternative to prosecution based on a settlement-based approach, which can benefit legal entities, whether public  or private, regardless of their size, legal form, sector of activity, or nationality, implicated for acts of active influence peddling by public officials committed by individuals , active influence peddling of a public official in a foreign state or within an international public organization , and private influence peddling .

As long as the public prosecution has not been initiated, the public prosecutor may propose that the legal entity in question enter into a judicial public interest agreement, requiring it to pay a “public interest” fine, the amount of which is set proportionally to the benefits derived from the observed breaches, calculated on the gross or net operating surplus derived from the markets obtained by the legal entity, or considering the total value of the market, within the limit of 30% of the average annual turnover calculated on the last three known annual turnovers at the date of the finding of said breaches. In the absence of turnover, the benefits derived from the offense may be assessed with regard to the expected forecasted operating flows, after deducting the cost of investments made exclusively for the operation of the site in question and the commitments to restore .

The legal entity in question may also, within the framework of the Judicial Public Interest Agreement (CJIP), submit for a maximum duration of three years, under the control of the French Anti-Corruption Agency (AFA), to a compliance program , even if it does not fall within the scope of Article 17 of the Sapin II Law. Before imposing it, the National Financial Prosecutor's Office (PNF), in coordination with the AFA, assesses the appropriateness of this measure, taking into account the conclusions of a possible initiative control carried out by the AFA or requested by the PNF before the signing of the CJIP , or the execution of a compliance obligation imposed by a foreign authority, or by an international financial institution, and close to the prescriptions of Article 41-1-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . Thus, as long as the quality of the internal measures and procedures for preventing and detecting breaches of integrity implemented by the legal entity appears satisfactory, the AFA may decide to exempt it from implementing a new compliance program and limit itself to simple supervision of the existing one.

Furthermore, when the victim is identified, the agreement also specifies the amount and terms of compensation for the damages caused to the victim by the offense within a period not exceeding one year, unless the damage has already been repaired as part of a procedure abroad.

Contractual in nature, the proposal for a Judicial Public Interest Agreement must be accepted by the legal entity in question. In this case, the public prosecutor submits a request for validation to the president of the Judicial Court, who must conduct a public hearing of the legal entity in question and the victim, and verify, at the end of the hearing, the appropriateness of using this procedure, the regularity of its conduct, the conformity of the fine amount, as well as the proportionality of the measures provided to the benefits derived from the breaches. This order, which allows for the enforcement of the obligations contained in the agreement, does not, however, constitute a declaration of guilt. It neither has the nature nor the effects of a conviction judgment and is not subject to appeal. The legal entity has, from the day of validation, a period of ten days to exercise its right of withdrawal. If it does not exercise this right, the obligations of the agreement are enforced. The full execution of the obligations provided by the agreement extinguishes the public action. However, in the event of non-execution or poor execution of the obligations imposed by the CJIP, the proposal becomes void. Indeed, it is the success or failure of the measures decided that conditions the extinction of the public action and determines the possibility for the public prosecutor to later pursue contentious proceedings, stricto sensu, if the statute of limitations still allows.

Excluding the State and local authorities and their groups when the offense was not committed in the exercise of activities that may be the subject of public service delegation agreements (Criminal Code, Art. 121-2).

CJIP, 15 May 2023, LawLex202300011666JBJ.

CJIP, 15 May 2023, LawLex202300011666JBJ; 29 November 2023, LawLex202400002361JBJ, LawLex202400002362JBJ and LawLex202400002364JBJ.

Guidelines on the implementation of the Judicial Public Interest Agreement of the AFA, 16 January 2023, 18.

CJIP, 29 November 2023, LawLex202400002361JBJ, LawLex202400002362JBJ and LawLex202400002364JBJ, previously cited, awarding EUR 250,000 in damages to each victim.

White Collar Crime (en cours)

134. Judicial Public Interest Agreement (deferred prosecution agreement)

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

134. Judicial Public Interest Agreement (deferred prosecution agreement)

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