How is France reinforcing the fight against international corruption?

In order to reinforce the measures against international corruption, the Chancery published, on 16 June 2020, a circular defining the general policy on the fight against international corruption. Firstly, this circular highlights the central role played in this matter by the national financial prosecutor's Department ("Financial prosecution", hereafter), which will be from now on, systematically informed of any "credible" suspicion brought to the attention of the different public prosecutor's departments. Secondly, the circular puts forward the following three themes:

1. Exploiting the means to alert on the existence of corruption

The circular provides for a greater collaboration between the Financial prosecution and State administrations, notably by raising their awareness and providing trainings. In this respect, the circular expressly mentions that this "reinforced" collaboration will be put into place with the French Anticorruption Agency, tax auditors, the Haut conseil du Commissariat aux comptes (accounting High Council), the representatives of judicial agents and administrators professions, and some public or quasi-public operators.

Besides, an enhanced collaboration with the representatives of companies operating on the international scale (MEDEF, AFEP) shall allow the establishment of incentivising measures regarding spontaneous revelation of infringing acts.

The Chancery also announces the systematic exploitation of information emanating from mutual assistance on criminal matters enquiries, involving French companies or companies having an activity on the national territory. Such exploitation could lead to "mirror" investigations. The Financial prosecution shall also exploit information published by foreign press and systematically assess the applicability of French criminal law extraterritorial jurisdiction in matters of corruption and bribery

2. Investigation strategy : celerity and exhaustiveness

In order to render the detection of the often complex corruptive schemes more efficient, and allow an exhaustive identification of individuals involved in such schemes, the circular provides for the extension of the Financial prosecution investigations to peripheral infringements. The latter constitute the so-called probity and integrity infringements such as money laundering, concealment, or also misuse of company assets, publication or presentation of inaccurate financial statements, breach of trust, fraud or forgery.

For the purpose of identifying and seizing the proceeds of the infringement, the received covert payments or retro-commissions, the Chancery also promises to put into place systematic patrimonial investigations as a complementary measure. Similarly, regarding the implementation of provisional measures ensuring the payment of fines, the Chancery clearly opted for the application of guarantee measures, in case of judicial investigation.

3. Legal proceedings : efficiency and dissuasion

Regarding individuals

Faced with the reality of a great involvement of individuals such as company directors or intermediaries ( commercial agents, distributors, local brokers ...) in corruptive patterns, the Chancery provides for the extension of legal proceedings to companies' individual directors and to all the external individuals to the company, implicated. This extension shall be subject to the existence of jurisdictional immunity.

The choice between a prior guilty plea procedure on one hand, and the filing of the matter before criminal courts on the other, shall be guided by the criminal records of the respondent, his degree of implication, the acknowledgment of the facts and the cooperation with the judicial authority. The individuals concerned could thus benefit from sentence reductions where their cooperation allowed to put an end to the infringement or to identify the perpetrators or their accomplices.

Moreover, complementary and adapted sentences ( interdiction to exercise civil and citizen rights, interdiction to exercise a professional activity etc...) could be applied to the concerned individuals.

Regarding legal entities

The circular specifies that the conclusion of a judicial public-interest agreement (CJIP) - a settlement mechanism similar to a 'deferred prosecution agreement' in cases of corruption and related offences implemented by the Sapin II Law -- could be convenient depending on the absence of prior criminal records, the voluntary character of the revelation of the infringements, the degree of cooperation with the judicial authority.

The prior guilty plea procedure could be contemplated where the conclusion of such CJIP is impossible, being noted that the filing of the matter before criminal courts applies to the most serious infringements and / or to non-cooperative legal entities and / or to entities denying the facts.

Finally, complementary sentences (publication of the decision, closing of establishments, seizure of assets, or exclusion from procurement contracts) could be applied.