FRANCE Law and Practice Contributed by: Christophe Ingrain, Tristan Gautier and Benoît Martinez, Darrois Villey Maillot & Brochier
3.16 Crypto-Assets and Digital Currency Crimes In France, crypto-assets are classified as digital assets ( actifs numériques ) under Article L. 54-10-1, CMF, encompassing utility tokens and digital curren - cies not issued or guaranteed by a central bank. Mis - conduct involving such assets may constitute fraud, money laundering, market manipulation, or unauthor - ised provision of investment services. Crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) – including exchanges, trading platforms, and wallet custodians – must be registered with the AMF and comply with AML/KYC, governance, and internal control obliga - tions. Failure to register or comply with these require - ments may lead to criminal prosecution, administra - tive fines, or prohibition from operating in France. Since January 2025, the EU Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) Regulation has introduced a harmonised framework, strengthening licensing and compliance obligations. French enforcement authorities (the AMF and the French Prudential Supervision and Resolution Authority or ACPR) are expected to increase scrutiny of AML breaches and unlicensed activities, integrating MiCA’s requirements into their criminal and regulatory enforcement strategy. In France, common defences to white-collar offences include lack of criminal intent, error of facts or law, and compliance with regulatory obligations. For individu - als, demonstrating that the alleged act was performed without fraudulent intent or outside the scope of one’s duties can exclude liability. For legal entities, criminal liability under Article 121-2, CP, requires that the offence be committed “on behalf of” the company by its representatives. Showing that the company maintained an effective internal control and compliance framework may help demonstrate the absence of organisational fault. 4. Pleas and Defences 4.1 White-Collar Defences While the existence of a compliance programme is not a formal defence under French law, it is a key mitigat -
173-1 et seq. of the Environmental Code). These require intentional or negligent breach of environmen - tal regulations and can result in fines of up to sev - eral million and imprisonment for company directors, alongside possible corporate liability. French criminal law has allowed the use of the CJIP for environmental offences since 2020. It enables companies to avoid prosecution by paying a fine, implementing compli - ance measures, and repairing environmental damage under judicial supervision. Social offences include violations of labour law, such as hidden work ( travail dissimulé ), endangerment of employees, and modern slavery ( réduction en servi- tude, traite des êtres humains ) under Articles 225-4-1 et seq., CP. These may entail imprisonment (up to 20 years in aggravated cases) and heavy corporate fines. Under the “duty of vigilance” Law No 2017-399 of 27 March 2017, large companies must monitor their supply chains to prevent serious human rights, health, safety, and environmental violations. Failure to implement or enforce a vigilance plan may lead to civil liability and reputational consequences, though specific criminal sanctions are not yet attached to this obligation. French criminal courts increasingly prosecute compa - nies for human rights violations, particularly in cases involving forced labour, human trafficking, or unsafe working conditions. This reflects a broader trend toward corporate accountability for global supply chain abuses. 3.15 Artificial Intelligence and Automation Misuse France does not yet have specific criminal offences targeting the misuse of AI, algorithmic trading, or auto - mated decision-making. However, such conduct may fall within existing offences, including fraud, market manipulation, and breach of professional duty under the CMF and the CP. For example, algorithmic trad - ing that creates false or misleading market signals can constitute market manipulation (Articles L. 465-2 and L. 465-3-1, CMF), punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment and EUR100 million in fines, or up to ten times the profit made. The use of AI systems for deceptive commercial practices may also trigger fraud offences (Article 313-1, CP).
63 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook