With regard to the Egis Avia case, the Nanterre Public Prosecutor`s Office opened preliminary proceedings against Egis Avia in 2011 following an inspection by the Revenue Control Brigade (BCR) which revealed that consultancy fees had been paid to companies established in states and territories considered non-cooperative. In the new draft (which, unlike the 2017 version, is addressed separately to public and private entities), the AFA builds on the current guidance by adding practical considerations from its advisory and audit engagements and, in some cases, from the first cases of the AFA Sanctions Committee (see above) where compliance with recommendations was a key topic. For example, the AFA adds details about who is considered “senior executives,” how the code of conduct fits into other company documents/charters, and how corruption reporting programs align with other legal programs. Financial penalties can reach up to €200,000 for presidents, directors and officers and up to €1 million for companies. In addition, the AFA Sanctions Committee (the independent body of the AFA responsible for deciding on claims for non-compliance after verification) may order the publication of the sanction in the press. Although the forensic audit mechanism is innovative, its scope is still quite limited. The Sapin II law does not allow individuals to benefit from this judicial verification mechanism. It is limited exclusively to the following companies and offences: corruption remains an important issue in the context of the health crisis, as many public and private organisations waive certain compliance requirements (e.g. B third-party evaluation procedures) when taking urgent decisions. On 28 June 2019, the National Financial Prosecutor`s Office (“PNF”) 1 and the French Anti-Corruption Agency (“AFA”) published guidelines on the relatively recent mechanism for comparing companies in France, known as a public judicial agreement or a judicial agreement of public interest (“CJIP”). This is the first time that the PNF and the AFA have published common guidelines on CJIP agreements.
The new comparison mechanism has been introduced in the French Penal Code. 3 The country`s new anti-corruption legislation, commonly known as the Sapin 2 Law, or the “Sapin 2 Law” (named after Michel Sapin, French Minister of Economy and Finance at the time of the law`s adoption), was adopted by France. has attracted the attention of companies and practitioners subject to the law. Indeed, since the entry into force of the reforms in December 2016, the French authorities have concluded several CIPs with companies. Since the closing of the very first CJIP in December 2017, French authorities have concluded a handful of CJIPs with companies of different sizes, including an agreement with global penalties of more than a billion dollars. The PNF quickly realized the importance of working closely with its foreign partners – such as the U.S. Department of Justice – to support enforcement actions and comparisons by several judges. . .
.