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)

Pursuant to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, everyone has the right to respect for their private and family life, their home, and their correspondence. There must be “no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.

According to the European Court of Human Rights, Article 8 is primarily intended to protect individuals against arbitrary interference by a public authority in the exercise of their right to respect for their private and family life, home, and correspondence . This classic negative obligation is described by the Court as constituting the essential object of Article 8 . However, member states are also subject to the positive obligation to ensure respect for the rights arising from Article 8, even between private parties . This positive obligation may involve adopting measures to respect private life, even in relations between individuals . Member states must therefore, in particular, ensure respect for the secrecy of correspondence.

Under French law, breaches of the secrecy of correspondence are penalized by Article 226-15 of the Criminal Code if the perpetrator is a private individual, and by Article 432-9 if the perpetrator is a public official . According to Article 226-15 of the Criminal Code, the act, committed in bad faith, of opening, deleting, delaying, or diverting correspondence whether or not it has reached its destination and addressed to third parties, or of fraudulently becoming aware of it, is punishable by one year of imprisonment and a fine of EUR 45,000. Paragraph 2 of this article states that the act, committed in bad faith, of intercepting, diverting, using, or disclosing correspondence sent, transmitted, or received electronically, or of installing devices likely to allow such interceptions, is punishable by the same penalties.

ECHR Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, 1994, § 31.

ECHR Bărbulescu v. Romania [GC], 2017, §§ 108-111 concerning the actions of a private employer.

For an application, see notably ECHR Evans v. United Kingdom [GC], 2007, § 75, even if the principle was first established in the judgment rendered in the case of Marckx v. Belgium, 1979.

Only the offense under Article 226-15 of the Criminal Code will be addressed in this section; the offense under Article 432-10 is considered in section 2, chapter 3.

Source of secrecy of correspondence

32. Source of secrecy of correspondence