FRANCE Law and Practice Contributed by: Samuel Sauphanor, Alexandra Szekely, Timothée de Saint Viance and Benoît Barré, Le 16 Law
1. Fraud Claims 1.1 General Characteristics of Fraud Claims The underlying conduct giving rise to fraud claims can be addressed through various legal mechanisms in France. French law distinguishes between criminal and civil liability, and fraudu - lent conduct may fall under one or both of these regimes, depending on the nature and context of the acts in question. Fraud is typically pursued through criminal pro - ceedings, with a wide range of offences, such as corruption, conspiracy and misappropriation and other forms of deceptive conduct, falling within the jurisdiction of criminal courts. Pro - ceedings are generally initiated through a referral to the public prosecutor, who retains jurisdiction over whether to investigate and bring charges. However, not all fraudulent conduct is confined to the criminal sphere. Certain acts, such as the making of false or misleading statements, may also trigger civil liability, particularly where they relate to contractual performance, pricing distor - tions or the dissemination of deceptive informa - tion. In these instances, civil proceedings may be brought independently or concurrently, offer - ing a parallel route for recovery and strategic lev - erage in complex disputes. There are circumstances in which initiating civil proceedings is particularly appropriate, espe - cially where the objective is swift compensation, where the evidentiary elements are already avail- able or where the underlying conduct involves breaches of contract or commercial misrepre - sentation rather than strictly penal wrongdoing. Civil proceedings may also be favoured when the burden of proof is more likely to be met in a civil forum, or where the public prosecutor
is unlikely to prioritise or pursue the matter. In these cases, claims based on fraudulent induce - ment ( manœuvres dolosives ) under Article 1240 of the French Civil Code can provide a direct and efficient route to recovery, without relying on the prosecutorial process. 1.2 Causes of Action After Receipt of a Bribe Under French law, bribery is a criminal offence prosecuted as a misdemeanour ( délit ), with sep - arate provisions addressing conduct in both the public and private sectors. Articles 433-1 and 433-2 of the French Criminal Code govern brib - ery involving public officials ( personnes déposi- taires de l’autorité publique ), while Article 434-9 addresses corruption within the judiciary. In the private sector, Articles 445-1 and 445-2 crimi - nalise both the giving and receiving of bribes. Sanctions include fines and imprisonment and may be complemented by additional penalties such as disqualification from holding public office or a ban on managing companies. Where the offence is committed by a legal entity, fines may be increased up to five times the statutory amount and may also be calculated based on the profits derived from the offence. The Sapin II Law of 9 December 2016 strength - ened France’s anti-corruption regime by intro - ducing the Convention Judiciaire d’Intérêt Public (the “CJIP” ), under Article 41-1-2 of the French Criminal Procedure Code. This mechanism, similar to a deferred prosecution agreement, enables legal entities under investigation for certain offences, including corruption, to avoid prosecution by agreeing to pay a public interest fine of up to 30% of their average turnover and to implement a compliance programme under the supervision of the French Anti-Corruption Agency (the “AFA” ). The CJIP does not involve an admission of guilt but requires full co-opera -
125 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook