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)

The term correspondence refers to any written relationship existing between two identifiable persons, whether it involves letters, messages, or sealed or open parcels. This relationship is protected by law, as long as the content it conveys is exclusively intended by a named person for another equally individualized person, unlike messages made available to the public . An announcement issued to u …

Protected Correspondence

The term correspondence refers to any written relationship existing between two identifiable persons, whether it involves letters, messages, or sealed or open parcels. This relationship is protected by law, as long as the content it conveys is exclusively intended by a named person for another equally individualized person, unlike messages made available to the public . An announcement issued to undifferentiated persons, which disseminates messages whose content is not personal, cannot thus have the character of private correspondence, unless its author and one of its readers decide to consent to a dialogue .

If the correspondence exchanged by a lawyer with their client falls under the concept of protected correspondence in all procedures where the lawyer defends their client , the protection seems to depend on the nature of the document exchanged. Thus, the European Court of Human Rights considered that a piece of paper folded in two on which a lawyer wrote a message and handed it to their clients constitutes protected correspondence , whereas the Criminal Chamber denied this quality to a piece of paper folded in two, sent by a lawyer to their client and containing their professional contact details, on the grounds that the paper was circulating openly . Internal company emails, which do not originate from or are not addressed to a lawyer, must be covered by the secrecy of correspondence exchanged with a lawyer, as long as their main purpose is based on a defense strategy implemented by a lawyer .

Emails exchanged using the computer tool provided to the employee by the employer have raised some interpretative difficulties regarding the concept of protected correspondence. In principle, the employer can open, outside the presence of the employee, emails sent or received by the latter using the computer tool provided for work purposes, as these emails are presumed to be professional unless identified as personal . Indeed, the employer cannot, without violating the secrecy of correspondence, access personal messages sent and received by the employee, even if non-professional use of the computer has been prohibited, as the secrecy of correspondence pertains to respecting the employee's privacy, to which they are entitled, even during work time and at the workplace . However, respect for the employee's personal life does not prevent the judge from accessing their personal emails, with the help of a bailiff, as long as it is established that the measures ordered are based on a legitimate reason and are necessary to protect the rights of the party that requested them . This principle also applies to a company's administrator: a work tool, namely a computer and an email account, is necessarily provided for the exercise of their functions, distinguishing them in no way from the employee, even if they are not in a subordinate relationship .

Judicial Court of Paris, 17th chamber, press chamber, 2 November 2000, partially overturned by CA Paris, 11th chamber, 19 December 2001.

Cass. crim., 25 October 2000, LawLex202200002510JBJ.

Cass. crim., 20 April 2022, LawLex202200002214JBJ.

ECHR, 24 May 2018, No 28798/13, LawLex202200002237JBJ.

Cass. crim., 16 October 2012, No 11-88.136, LawLex202200002492JBJ.

Cass. crim., 26 January 2022, LawLex202200000585JBJ.

Cass. soc., 26 June 2012, LawLex202200002641JBJ.

Cass. soc., 12 October 2004, LawLex202200002642JBJ.

Cass. soc., 10 June 2008, LawLex202200002643JBJ: in this case, the employer had legitimate and serious reasons to fear that the computer provided to the employee was used to facilitate acts of unfair competition.

White Collar Crime (en cours)

33. Protected Correspondence

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

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

33. Protected Correspondence

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