White-Collar Crime 2026 Comparisons

Categories of Offences

French criminal law distinguishes between crimes, misdemeanours (délits) and petty offences (contraventions). Crimes are punishable by criminal imprisonment ranging from ten years to life imprisonment. Misdemeanours are punishable by imprisonment for up to ten years, fines of at least EUR3,750 and various ancillary penalties. Most white-collar crimes fall within that category. Contraventions, divided into five classes, are solely punishable by fines.

General Prerequisites

French criminal law requires three constituent elements. First, a statutory provision: pursuant to the principle of legality, no conduct may be punished unless it is defined and made punishable by a prior written text. French law thus knows no equivalent of common law offences. Second, an actus reus, which consists in the outward conduct proscribed by the text, whether an act of commission or, where the law so provides, an omission. Third, for crimes and misdemeanours, an intent, which requires that the offender acted intentionally. Where statute expressly so provides, misdemeanours may be constituted by mere recklessness or negligence.

Attempts

Attempted crimes are always punishable, as are attempted misdemeanours where expressly provided by law. The perpetrator of an attempt incurs the same penalties as the author of the completed offence. An attempt requires a commencement of execution that fails or is interrupted solely because of circumstances independent of the perpetrator’s will. Mere preparatory acts are therefore insufficient, although they may themselves fall within the scope of criminal conspiracy (association de malfaiteurs).

French criminal law rests on the principle that doubt must operate in favour of the accused (in dubio pro reo). That principle does not mean, however, that the mere existence of a doubt – even a reasonable one – will neutralise an accusation.

Indeed, in practice, particularly in white-collar matters, trial judges can and often infer the constituent elements of an offence from what they refer to as a “nexus of clues”, that is, a cluster of serious, precise and consistent circumstantial factors. This is not a statutory presumption but a presumption of facts: the burden formally remains with the prosecution, yet proof is achieved through inferences.

For instance, corruption and influence peddling are often inferred from the temporal coincidence of payments and political decisions, from the absence of any genuine economic counterpart, and/or from the use of shell companies or consultancy agreements under which no identifiable service was rendered.

Reasoning of this kind amounts, in substance, to permitting a conviction where the commission of the offence is highly probable, notwithstanding the possible subsistence of a doubt. Perhaps for that very reason, French criminal law contains comparatively few statutory presumptions of guilt, by contrast with certain other systems, although the French constitutional court upheld their legality as a matter of principle (on condition that they are not irrebuttable, that the rights of the defence are secured, and that the facts relied upon reasonably support the likelihood of imputability). Such presumptions are numerous in customs law. Outside that field, they are markedly rarer. In white-collar crimes, the leading instance concerns money laundering: the offence is legally presumed where the material, legal or financial circumstances of a given operation can have no justification other than the concealment of its origin or of the beneficiaries.

Limitation periods vary from 20 to 30 years for crimes (depending on the gravity), and six years for misdemeanours.

Although the limitation period ordinarily runs from the day on which the offence was committed, the starting point can be deferred in several situations. White-collar crime cases are primarily continuing offences and so-called hidden offences. In the first case, the limitation period does not begin until the unlawful actions have ceased. In the second case, the limitation period starts only from the day on which the offence is discovered and could have been prosecuted. Both, however, are subject to a limit of 12 years for misdemeanours and 30 years for crimes from the date of commission.

Extraterritorial Reach

The extraterritorial reach of the French criminal courts has expanded steadily over the past few decades. In white-collar crime cases, the following mechanisms are most commonly used.

First, an offence is deemed to have been committed on French territory where any one of its “constituent facts” took place there. Case law has consistently given that expression a meaning far broader than the material act constituting the offence itself: preparatory acts, acts of execution and the receipt of the proceeds have all been construed as “constituent facts”, thereby establishing jurisdiction over conduct otherwise carried out abroad.

Criminal courts have also developed the concept of indivisibility so as to try an offence committed entirely abroad. Two sets of facts are indivisible where they are bound together by such a link that the existence of one could not be understood without the existence of the other. Case law has also extended French courts’ jurisdiction over acts of complicity committed in another country when the principal offence is committed in France.

Two legal extensions must be emphasised. First, the Sapin II Law of 2016 established a special regime for international corruption. French courts now have jurisdiction over such offences committed abroad by French nationals but also by persons resident in France and by any person, natural or legal, carrying on all or part of his/her/its economic activity on French territory – a criterion of manifest importance for multinational groups.

Second, since 2016, French law now provides that any crime or délit committed or attempted by means of an electronic communications network to the prejudice of a natural person residing in France or of a legal person having its registered office in France, is deemed to have been committed on French territory.

Cross-Border Co-Operation

France is bound by several cumulative strata of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters.

The most integrated stratum is that of the European Union, which has replaced classical mutual assistance between member states with a regime of mutual recognition and direct transmission between judicial authorities. The European Arrest Warrant allows for extradition under a simplified extradition procedure, with short mandatory time-limits and no double criminality for 32 categories of offence. The European Investigation Order enables French judicial authorities to require the authorities of another member state to carry out investigative measures on their territory. Joint investigation teams allow magistrates and investigators from several states to operate within a single structure, evidence gathered by one participant being directly available to the others. Lastly, a series of instruments governs the cross-border enforcement of criminal judgments, whether custodial sentences, financial penalties or confiscation orders.

France is also party to most of the principal multilateral conventions: within the Council of Europe, at the OECD level, and at the United Nations level.

Finally, France is bound by some 50 bilateral mutual assistance conventions, concluded chiefly with states falling outside the European instruments. Their content is variable: some are modern texts providing for direct transmission, videoconference hearings and asset tracing; others, usually older ones, confine assistance to the service of documents and the taking of evidence through diplomatic channels.

The French Blocking Statute

The Law of 26 July 1968, amended in 1980 and again in 2022, commonly known as the French Blocking Statute (loi de blocage), prohibits any person from communicating to foreign public authorities documents or information of an economic, commercial, industrial, financial or technical nature where such communication is liable to prejudice the sovereignty, security or essential economic interests of France. It also prohibits any person from requesting, seeking or communicating such information with a view to the constitution of evidence in foreign judicial or administrative proceedings, otherwise than in accordance with the international treaties or agreements in force – that is to say, through the channels of mutual legal assistance or of the Hague Evidence Convention of 1970. Breach is a délit punishable by up to six months’ imprisonment and a fine of up to EUR18,000 for natural persons (and EUR90,000 for legal persons).

France also implements Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 of 22 November 1996, which neutralises the extraterritorial effect of the third-country measures listed in its annex.

Conditions for Corporate Criminal Liability

A legal entity may be subject to criminal liability for any offence committed on its behalf by one of its corporate bodies or representatives. An offence is deemed as committed on its behalf where the conduct serves the entity’s organisation, operations or objectives. The relevant corporate body or representative must be identified in the conviction decision.

Concurrent Criminal Liability of the Company and Individuals

A legal entity and one or more natural persons may be held criminally liable for the same offence, but their respective liability is assessed separately and is not automatic. Managers and directors may incur personal criminal liability where they personally commit or participate in the offence, whether as a principal or an accomplice. Prosecutorial guidance issued in 2006, following the generalisation of corporate criminal liability, sets out a policy preference as to whether proceedings should be brought against the legal entity, the individuals concerned, or both. It distinguishes between intentional and unintentional offences. For the latter, proceedings against the legal entity alone are generally preferred unless a sufficiently established personal fault justifies prosecuting the individuals. For intentional offences, proceedings should, in principle, be brought against both the legal entity and the natural persons involved.

Corporate Liability in Case of Merger and Acquisition

Since the Cour de cassation’s landmark decision of 25 November 2020, an absorbing company may be held criminally liable for offences committed by the absorbed company before the merger. The 2020 decision concerned companies falling within the scope of the EU rules on mergers of public limited companies (sociétés anonymes – SA). In 2024, the Cour de cassation extended the principle to any legal entity carrying on an economic activity, regardless of its corporate form.

Parent-Subsidiary and/or Group Company Liability

There is no general principle of group criminal liability: each company’s liability is assessed separately. However, a parent company may be held liable for an offence committed on its behalf through natural persons formally employed by subsidiaries where, in practice, they acted as its de facto representatives.

Corporate Liability for Failure to Prevent Offences

French criminal law does not currently recognise a standalone “failure to prevent” offence. However, in practice, French courts may hold a company criminally liable where an offence committed on its behalf by one of its organs or representatives results from failures of supervision or organisation attributable to that organ or representative. This framework is further expected to evolve following Directive (EU) 2026/1021 on combating corruption. The Directive requires member states to provide for corporate liability where a lack of supervision or control by a person in a leading position has enabled a person under that person’s authority to commit a corruption offence for the benefit of the legal entity. France must transpose these requirements into national law by 1 June 2028.

Assessment of Penalties Before Criminal Court

The French Criminal Code sets out the maximum penalties applicable to each offence. France does not have formal sentencing guidelines prescribing the penalty to be imposed in individual cases. Instead, sentencing is governed by the principle of individualisation of penalties. Within the limits prescribed by law, the court determines the nature, quantum and terms of the sentence by reference to the circumstances of the offence, the offender’s personality and personal situation. Where a fine is imposed, the court must also take into account the offender’s financial resources and liabilities.

As regards the sentencing process before criminal court, after the case has been heard, the public prosecutor makes sentencing submissions, to which the defendant may respond, with the defence having the final word. The court is not bound by the prosecutor’s submissions and determines the sentence within the statutory limits in accordance with the principle of individualisation.

Assessment of Penalties in the Event of a Negotiated Agreement

For a Convention judiciaire d’intérêt public (CJIP), similar to a deferred prosecution agreement, the assessment of the public-interest fine is governed by the French Code of Criminal Procedure and, for CJIPs handled by the PNF, supplemented by the PNF’s 2023 Guidelines. According to the law, the fine must be proportionate to the benefits derived from the misconduct and may not exceed 30% of the company’s average annual turnover, calculated by reference to the last three annual turnover figures known when the misconduct was identified. Under the PNF Guidelines, the fine comprises restitutive and punitive components, the latter being adjusted by aggravating and mitigating factors. Remediation and corporate compliance are expressly relevant: corrective measures, effective internal controls, voluntary self-disclosure, active co-operation, the quality of the internal investigation, acknowledgement of the facts and prior compensation of victims may mitigate the fine. Conversely, deficiencies in the compliance programme, repeated misconduct, obstruction of the investigation and the use of corporate resources to conceal the misconduct may increase it. Corporate culture is not identified as a standalone factor but may therefore be reflected in the assessment of the company’s compliance framework, conduct and remediation efforts.

For a guilty plea procedure (comparution sur reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité, CRPC), there are no sentencing guidelines comparable to the PNF Guidelines applicable to CJIPs. The prosecutor may propose one or more principal or additional penalties, the nature and quantum of which must be determined in accordance with the general individualisation principle. Any proposed fine may not exceed the statutory maximum, while any proposed custodial sentence may not exceed three years or one-half of the maximum sentence otherwise available, whichever is lower, and may be suspended.

A victim may claim compensation where it has suffered personal and direct loss caused by an offence. French law does not award punitive damages.

In white-collar cases, victims typically initiate or join the criminal proceedings as a civil claimant to claim damages. Alternatively, they may also claim damages before the civil court.

A collective redress mechanism (action de groupe) has existed in France since 2014. The regime was significantly broadened by the Law of 30 April 2025, which introduced a general regime covering natural persons and legal entities affected by the same or similar breach of legal or contractual obligations committed in the course of a professional activity. Accordingly, conduct amounting to a white-collar offence may also give rise to collective redress where these statutory conditions are met. The group action remains a civil redress mechanism and does not itself constitute a criminal proceeding.

Prosecuting Authorities

The public prosecutor’s office has investigative and prosecutorial powers and is assisted by the judicial police, including financial units (ie, the Central Office for Combating Corruption and Financial and Tax Offences, the Central Office for Combating Serious Financial Crime, the National Anti-Fraud Office and, most recently, the Financial and Anti-Corruption Brigade of the Paris judicial police.

In complex financial cases, investigations are frequently conducted by an investigating judge who holds autonomous powers of investigation.

The National Financial Prosecutor’s office (PNF) has nationwide jurisdiction over a statutory range of offences including corruption, influence peddling, complex tax fraud and market abuse. Depending on the offence, its jurisdiction may be concurrent with that of local prosecutors or exclusive.

The National Prosecutor’s Office for Organised Crime (PNACO), operational since 5 January 2026, has nationwide jurisdiction over the most serious and complex forms of organised crime and may therefore handle economic and financial offences.

Administrative and Regulatory Enforcement

Alongside criminal enforcement by the public prosecution authorities, several administrative authorities and independent regulators have investigative and sanctioning powers within their respective fields:

• the French Anti-Corruption Agency (AFA) monitors compliance with the anti-corruption measures required under the Sapin II Law; where breaches of the statutory compliance obligations are identified, AFA may refer the matter to its Sanctions Committee, which may issue injunctions and impose financial penalties;
• the Financial Markets Authority (AMF) plays a central role in protecting investors and ensuring the proper functioning of financial markets; its Sanctions Committee may impose financial and disciplinary sanctions;
• the General Directorate for Competition Policy, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control (DGCCRF) investigates and takes enforcement action in relation to consumer protection, product safety, unfair commercial practices and breaches of competition;
• the Competition Authority investigates and sanctions anticompetitive practices, including cartels and abuses of a dominant position and may impose substantial financial penalties; and
• the Prudential Supervision and Resolution Authority (ACPR) supervises banking and insurance sectors and may impose financial sanctions for breaches of applicable regulatory requirements, including prudential, customer protection and anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing obligations.

Special Rules and Conflicts of Jurisdiction

The same conduct may, in certain circumstances, give rise to both criminal and administrative proceedings, subject to constitutional and European restrictions on cumulative prosecution and punishment. In financial markets, a statutory referral mechanism (procédure d’aiguillage) determines whether certain market-abuse conduct will be prosecuted criminally by the PNF or pursued by the AMF.

Enforcement Policy and Trends

French enforcement policy increasingly relies on specialised prosecution offices, notably the PNF and the newly operational PNACO.

The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) also investigates and prosecutes offences affecting the EU’s financial interests.

Directive (EU) 2026/1021 on combating corruption will further harmonise corruption offences, sanctions and limitation periods, although it remains to be transposed into French law.

The decision whether to initiate criminal proceedings lies with the public prosecutor’s office, which enjoys discretion as to the action to be taken in response to facts brought to its attention. Where the facts may constitute an offence, the public prosecutor may open an investigation, take no further action (classement sans suite), or resort to an alternative to prosecution. Where the facts amount to a crime, however, a judicial investigation is mandatory.

Facts may be brought to the attention of the public prosecutor’s office through a variety of channels. They may be reported by private parties for example through a complaint by a victim, a report by an accredited association, information revealed by a press investigation, or a whistle-blower report. They may also be reported by public authorities, including government departments and regulatory authorities.

Victims may, in certain circumstances, overcome prosecutorial inaction by bringing the case directly before the trial court by way of direct summons (citation directe), provided that the alleged offender is identified and sufficient evidence is available to support the prosecution. They may also file a complaint and join the proceedings as a civil party (plainte avec constitution de partie civile) before the investigating judge. Subject to the applicable admissibility requirements, this sets the criminal proceedings in motion and generally results in the opening of a judicial investigation.

French law provides for three investigative frameworks, involving different levels of coercive powers: the preliminary investigation (enquête préliminaire) and the flagrante delicto investigation (enquête de flagrance), both conducted by the judicial police under the direction of the public prosecutor, and the judicial investigation (information judiciaire), conducted by an investigating judge.

Requisitions for Information

Prosecutors and judicial police officers may require individuals, companies and public or private bodies to provide information relevant to an investigation. Failure to comply without legitimate ground may be punishable by a fine, and banking secrecy does not as such prevent disclosure pursuant to a lawful requisition.

Searches and Seizures

Investigative authorities may search company premises and seize documents, computer data and other material relevant to the investigation, subject to the procedural requirements applicable to the relevant investigative framework. Searches of private premises may not generally begin before 6:00 or after 21:00. Specific safeguards apply to certain protected premises and legally privileged material.

Hearings and Questioning

A person against whom there are no plausible grounds to suspect the commission of an offence may be heard as a witness, without any coercive measure. A suspect may be interviewed either without being taken into custody (audition libre), which they may terminate at any time, or under police custody (garde à vue). Police custody may last for up to 24 hours and may be extended for a further 24 hours. Longer periods are permitted for certain serious offences. Suspects are entitled to be informed of the allegations against them, to remain silent and to be assisted by a lawyer.

Special Investigative Techniques

Special investigative techniques, such as the interception of electronic communications, capture of electronic data or access to stored electronic communications, are restricted to offences committed by organised groups.

Certain economic and financial offences, such as money laundering, fraud or corruption committed by organised crime groups, may be subject to these particularly intrusive investigative techniques.

Freezing and Tracing of Digital Assets

The authorities can seize any asset, whether tangible or intangible, which may constitute the proceeds of an offence as well as sums credited to a bank account or to a digital asset account. The purpose of such seizures is to secure the enforcement of any confiscation sentence that may subsequently be imposed by the trial court. The custody and, where appropriate, the pre-trial sale of seized assets fall within the remit of the Agency for the Recovery and Management of Seized and Confiscated Assets (AGRASC).

Administrative Authorities

Certain administrative authorities hold investigative powers of their own:

• The AMF may require the production of any document and summon any person in the course of its market abuse investigations; its authorised investigators may further carry out searches of premises and seizures, subject to authorisation by the liberty and custody judge.
• The DGCCRF holds investigative powers in respect of economic fraud and consumer protection, and may carry out inspections, seizures and interviews.
• The Competition Authority holds powers of search and seizure, likewise subject to authorisation by the liberty and custody judge.

The use of automated analysis tools in criminal investigations is not governed by a single dedicated legal framework. It falls within the applicable provisions of criminal procedure and data protection law, in particular the French Data Protection Act (loi Informatique et Libertés) implementing Directive (EU) 2016/680 for law enforcement processing. The Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 on artificial intelligence imposes additional requirements where the tool concerned qualifies as an AI system within its scope. The EU Regulation prohibits, subject to conditions and exceptions, policing systems based on individual profiling and classifies certain AI systems deployed for law enforcement purposes as high-risk, subjecting them to enhanced requirements as to transparency, human oversight and documentation.

Use by the Authorities

In tax matters, the French tax authority (Direction générale des finances publiques or DGFiP) operates a fraud-targeting programme based on data mining (ciblage de la fraude et valorisation des requêtes or CFVR), which relies on the analysis of large-scale datasets.

In financial matters, the AMF uses transaction analysis tools to detect market abuse, and TRACFIN processes the reports it receives by means of data analysis tools.

Internal Investigations Assisted by Artificial Intelligence

No specific regime governs the treatment by the authorities of internal investigations conducted using automated tools. Their findings may be submitted as factual evidence which the court is free to assess. Their use presupposes compliance with the GDPR, transparency towards the individuals concerned, and the proportionality of the measures implemented.

The Sapin II Law requires companies employing at least 500 people and generating annual turnover exceeding EUR100 million as well as companies belonging to a group whose parent company meets these thresholds, to implement an anti-corruption compliance programme, including an internal whistle-blowing system.

Moreover, the Sapin II Law, as amended by the Law of 21 March 2022 requires private-sector entities employing at least 50 employees to establish internal procedures for receiving and handling whistle-blower reports. In practice, the receipt of a report may lead the company to investigate the allegations, take appropriate disciplinary or remedial action and assess any criminal exposure.

The Labour Code requires employers to conduct an investigation following an alert raised by the Social and Economic Committee, in particular in cases of serious and imminent danger or where employees’ fundamental rights are at stake. Such investigations are conducted jointly with employee representatives.

Professional Secrecy and Legal Privilege

Correspondence and legal advice exchanged with external counsel are covered by legal professional privilege and may not, in principle, be seized.

A separate statutory confidentiality regime for in-house counsel’s legal advice was introduced by the Law of 23 February 2026, but its scope remains narrow: subject to strict formal conditions, it is expressly excluded in criminal and tax matters. Internal legal analyses therefore remain liable to seizure.

As a general rule, the decision to prosecute lies with the public prosecutor’s office, which enjoys discretion as to the action to be taken: initiate criminal proceedings, resort to an alternative measure or close the case without further action.

When a judicial investigation has been opened, as is mandatory in respect of crimes and common in complex financial cases, the decision to commit the person under investigation for trial ultimately lies with the investigating judge, who assesses whether sufficient evidence exists.

Judicial Public Interest Agreement (CJIP)

The CJIP is a negotiated settlement available to legal entities in respect of certain offences including corruption, influence peddling, tax fraud and money laundering. It allows criminal proceedings to be resolved without a trial and without a finding of guilt. It may require a public interest fine of up to 30% of the average annual turnover over the last three years, a compliance programme supervised by the Anti-Corruption Agency for up to three years and compensation of victims. The validation order does not constitute a finding of guilt and does not have the nature or effects of a criminal conviction.

Guilty Plea Procedure (CRPC)

Available to natural persons in respect of most misdemeanours, the CRPC requires the admission of the alleged facts. The public prosecutor may propose sentences that may not exceed three years’ imprisonment or half the maximum term of imprisonment otherwise applicable, whichever is lower, and the fine is capped at the amount otherwise applicable. If the proposal is accepted by the defendant with the assistance of counsel, it is submitted to a judge for approval.

French Law provides for numerous criminal offences relating to fraudulent conduct in the management of companies. One of the principal offences is misuse of corporate assets (abus de biens sociaux).

This offence occurs when a company director or officer, acting in bad faith, uses the company’s assets or credit in a manner which they know to be contrary to the company’s interests, for personal purposes or to favour another company in which they have a direct or indirect interest. The offence is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to EUR375,000. The penalties are increased to up to seven years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to EUR500,000 where the offence is committed or facilitated through accounts, structures or intermediaries established abroad.

Other corporate offences include the misuse of corporate powers or voting rights, the distribution of fictitious dividends, and the presentation of inaccurate annual accounts with a view to concealing the company’s true financial position.

Bribery

French law criminalises bribery in both the public and private sectors, in active and passive forms. Active bribery consists of directly or indirectly offering or granting an undue advantage in return for an act or omission relating to the recipient’s duties, while passive bribery consists of requesting or accepting such an advantage.

Public-sector bribery is punishable by up to ten years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to EUR1 million, which may be increased to twice the proceeds of the offence. The same penalties apply to bribery of foreign public officials and officials of international organisations. If committed by an organised group, the fine may reach EUR2 million or twice the proceeds of the offence, if higher.

Private-sector bribery requires the relevant act or omission to breach the recipient’s legal, contractual or professional duties. It is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to EUR500,000, which may be increased to twice the proceeds of the offence. If committed by an organised group, the penalties increase to up to ten years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to EUR1 million.

Influence Peddling

Influence peddling (traffic d’influence) involves offering, granting, requesting or accepting an advantage in return for the abuse of actual or purported influence over a public authority or administration to obtain a favourable decision. Unlike bribery, it involves a three-party relationship and neither the influence nor the intended decision needs to materialise. Penalties may reach ten years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to EUR1 million where the intermediary holds public office, and up to five years and EUR500,000 in other cases.

The Sapin II Law of 9 December 2016 is the main French legislation governing anti-bribery compliance.

Under Article 17, companies employing at least 500 employees, or belonging to a group whose French parent company meets that threshold, and whose annual turnover or consolidated turnover exceeds EUR100 million, are required to implement measures to prevent and detect bribery and influence peddling. These comprise eight measures, including a code of conduct, an internal whistle-blowing system, risk mapping, third-party due diligence, accounting controls, employee training, a disciplinary regime and internal monitoring of the compliance programme.

The French Anti-Corruption Agency (Agence française anticorruption – AFA) monitors compliance with these requirements.

Sanctions for Non-Compliance

Failure to prevent bribery does not, in itself, constitute a criminal offence. However, failure to comply with the relevant requirements may result in proceedings before the AFA Sanctions Commission, which may impose fines of up to EUR200,000 for individuals and EUR1 million for legal entities.

Where a legal entity is convicted of bribery or influence peddling, a criminal court may also order it to implement a compliance programme, under AFA’s supervision, for up to five years.

Failure to comply with such a court-ordered programme may give rise to further criminal penalties.

Disclosure Obligations

Although there is no general obligation for individuals or companies to report bribery-related offences, certain categories of persons are legally required to do so, including public officials who become aware of a crime or offence, statutory auditors, and professionals subject to anti-money laundering reporting obligations.

Failure to comply with these specific obligations may result in criminal, disciplinary or administrative sanctions. In particular, a statutory auditor who fails to report relevant criminal conduct to the public prosecutor may face up to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of EUR75,000.

French criminal law provides for three types of market abuse: insider dealing, market manipulation, and the dissemination of false or misleading information.

Insider dealing consists of knowingly using inside information to carry out a transaction, or cancel or amend an order, in relation to the relevant financial instruments or crypto-assets.

Market manipulation consists of engaging in active conduct on the markets amounting to manipulative practices. It is thus an offence to carry out a transaction, place an order, or engage in conduct that gives, or is likely to give, misleading signals as to the supply of, demand for, or price of a financial instrument.

The dissemination of false or misleading data or information concerning an issuer or the market is also an offence.

These offences are punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to EUR100 million, which may be increased to ten times the benefit derived from the offence. When committed by an organised group, the maximum term of imprisonment increases to ten years.

French Law also prohibits the unauthorised conduct of regulated banking activities, including credit operations and receiving repayable funds from the public.

Tax fraud consists of fraudulently evading or attempting to evade the assessment or full or partial payment of a tax. The offence requires both a material act or omission enabling the taxpayer to evade taxation, and an intentional breach of tax obligations.

Tax fraud is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to EUR500,000, which may be increased to twice the proceeds of the offence. Aggravated tax fraud, including where committed by an organised group or through certain foreign accounts, entities or arrangements, is punishable by up to seven years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to EUR3 million, which may be increased to twice the proceeds of the offence.

France does not impose a general criminal or administrative offence of failure to prevent tax evasion. However, specific reporting obligations apply, notably to professionals subject to anti-money laundering rules, who must report qualifying suspicions of tax fraud to TRACFIN.

French company law requires companies to prepare annual accounts and, where applicable, an inventory and management report. Failure by the relevant corporate officers to prepare the required documents is punishable by a fine of up to EUR9,000.

It is also an offence knowingly to present or publish annual accounts that do not give a true and fair view of the company’s results, financial position and assets, with a view to concealing its true position. The offence is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to EUR375,000.

French competition law mainly prohibits anti-competitive agreements and abuses of a dominant position.

An anti-competitive agreement is a practice which has as its object or effect the distortion or restriction of competition, whether formalised in an agreement or arising merely from a concerted practice. Such agreements may be vertical, where they bring together undertakings active at different stages of the economic process, or horizontal – also referred to as cartels – where they unite operators active at the same stage.

An undertaking holding a dominant position on a market commits an abuse of dominant position where it engages in conduct that materially undermines competition.

These anti-competitive practices may give rise to administrative pecuniary sanctions by the French Competition Authority of up to 10% of their highest worldwide pre-tax turnover during the relevant statutory period. In addition, individuals who fraudulently take a personal and decisive part in the design, organisation or implementation of such practices may also incur criminal liability punishable by up to four years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to EUR75,000.

French consumer law provides for numerous criminal and administrative sanctions, notably for misleading commercial practices and deception.

A commercial practice is misleading where, in particular, it contains false or misleading information about a product or service or conceals material information. It is punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to EUR300,000, which may be increased to 10% of average annual turnover. Where committed online or through digital or electronic media, the offence is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to EUR 750,000.

Deception (tromperie) consists of misleading the consumer as to the subject matter of the transaction itself, including the nature, essential characteristics, quantity or fitness for purpose of goods or services. It is punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to EUR300,000, increased to up to seven years and EUR750,000 in certain aggravated cases, including where the offence renders the goods dangerous to health or is committed by an organised group.              

French criminal law prohibits attacks on automated data processing systems, commonly referred to as hacking.

Four types of conduct are criminalised: fraudulent access to, or fraudulently remaining within, all or part of an automated data processing system; hindering or impairing its operation; the fraudulent introduction, extraction, possession, reproduction, transmission, deletion or alteration of data; and the possession, offer, transfer or provision, without legitimate reason, of equipment or software designed to commit such offences. Penalties range from three to ten years’ imprisonment and fines from EUR100,000 to EUR300,000.

There is no separate offence of computer fraud: enforcement relies on the cumulative application of offences relating to automated data processing systems and general criminal offences (fraud, breach of trust and, in ransomware cases, extortion).

Misappropriation of trade secrets is primarily subject to civil liability, although related conduct may constitute theft, breach of trust or offences relating to automated data processing systems. However, the disclosure of a manufacturing secret by a director or an employee constitutes a criminal offence, punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to EUR30,000.

France implements UN and EU sanctions and may also adopt national asset-freezing measures. EU restrictive measures are directly applicable and may apply to EU nationals and entities, including in relation to conduct outside the EU.

Breaching economic or financial restrictive measures imposed by EU law or applicable international agreements is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to twice the amount involved.

Customs offences include smuggling and the importation or exportation of prohibited goods without declaration, which are punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment, confiscation of the goods and means of transport involved, and a fine of up to twice the value of the goods. Penalties increase to ten years for dangerous goods or where the offence is committed by an organised group.

Customs offences are largely strict-liability in nature, good faith being in principle irrelevant; although sanctions breaches are prosecuted criminally, the French Prudential Supervision and Resolution Authority may separately impose administrative penalties on financial institutions whose asset-freezing systems are deficient.

Under French law, concealment (recel) consists of concealing, holding or transferring property obtained through a criminal offence, or acting as an intermediary for its transfer, while knowing that the property is of unlawful origin. The offence is also committed where a person knowingly benefits, by any means, from the proceeds of a criminal offence.

Concealment may therefore relate to the proceeds of a wide range of economic and financial offences, including bribery, fraud, abuse of corporate assets and tax fraud. Unlike money laundering, the person who committed the predicate offence cannot be prosecuted for concealment of the proceeds of that same offence.

Concealment is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to EUR375,000. The penalties are increased to up to ten years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to EUR750,000 where the offence is committed habitually, by using facilities provided by a professional activity, or by an organised group. The fine may also be increased to half the value of the property concerned. Where the predicate offence carries a higher custodial sentence, the recipient may incur that higher penalty if aware of the relevant predicate offence.

Under French criminal law, a person is an accomplice where they knowingly facilitate the preparation or commission of an offence through aid or assistance, or incite an offence by gift, promise, threat, order or abuse of authority or power, or provide instructions for its commission.

It requires a punishable principal act committed by the perpetrator, a material act of complicity carried out before or at the same time as that act, and an intentional element, namely knowledge of the principal offence and the will to associate oneself with it. The accomplice is punished as a principal offender and incurs the same penalties.

French law does not recognise the common-law concept of conspiracy. It does, however, provide for the autonomous offence of criminal association, which penalises participation in a group or an agreement, evidenced by one or more overt acts, formed with a view to the preparation of a crime or of a misdemeanour punishable by at least five years’ imprisonment. Penalties range from five years’ imprisonment and a EUR75,000 fine to 15 years and EUR225,000 depending on the seriousness of the intended offences.

Legal entities may also incur criminal liability for offences committed on their behalf by their corporate bodies or representatives.

Money laundering may take two forms: facilitating the false justification of the origin of property or income derived from a crime or offence, or assisting in the placement, concealment or conversion of the proceeds of such offence.

It is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to EUR375,000, increased to up to ten years and EUR750,000 where the acts are committed habitually through facilities provided by a professional activity or by an organised group. The fines may further be increased to half the value of the funds or property involved.

Presumption of Illicit Origin

There is a presumption of illicit origin of property or income which alleviates the burden of proof on the public prosecutor where the circumstances of the placement, concealment or conversion can have no other justification than concealing their origin or beneficial owner. This expressly extends to certain anonymised crypto-asset transactions.

Anti-Money Laundering Framework

Professionals subject to anti-money laundering rules must conduct due diligence and report qualifying suspicious transactions to TRACFIN. Compliance with these obligations is monitored, for financial professions, by the Autorité de contrôle prudentiel et de résolution (ACPR) and the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF), and for non-financial professions, by the relevant professional or regulatory bodies. These authorities may impose administrative sanctions in the event of a breach. There is no general criminal offence of failure to prevent money laundering, although participation in laundering itself remains criminal.

French law provides for various criminal offences relating to ESG misconduct, particularly environmental harm and serious labour and human-rights abuses.

Environmental offences include pollution, harm to protected species and unlawful waste management. Serious and lasting pollution resulting from a manifestly deliberate breach of a statutory duty of care or safety is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to EUR1 million, which may be increased to five times the benefit derived. Where committed intentionally, certain serious and lasting environmental offences constitute ecocide, punishable by up to ten years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to EUR4.5 million, which may be increased to ten times the benefit derived.

There is no single offence of modern slavery. Relevant offences include enslavement, forced labour, servitude, human trafficking and subjecting persons to working or living conditions incompatible with human dignity, with penalties varying according to the offence and aggravating circumstances.

Large companies must also establish and implement a vigilance plan addressing serious human-rights, health, safety and environmental risks arising from their own activities and those of controlled subsidiaries and certain established business relationships. A breach of this duty gives rise to civil, rather than criminal, liability, including injunctions and damages.

French law does not provide for a general criminal offence of misuse of AI, algorithmic trading or automated decision-making. Existing criminal offences apply where AI or algorithms are used as a means of committing an offence.

In financial markets, algorithmic practices may constitute market manipulation where transactions, orders or other conduct give or are likely to give misleading signals as to supply, demand or price, or fix or are likely to fix prices at an abnormal or artificial level. Market manipulation is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to EUR100 million, which may be increased to ten times the benefit derived from the offence.

Algorithmic trading is also subject to regulatory requirements, breaches of which may be sanctioned by the AMF, including by fines of up to EUR100 million or ten times the benefit derived.

Unlawful automated decision-making may also breach the GDPR, while prohibited AI practices under the EU AI Act may attract administrative fines of up to EUR35 million or 7% of worldwide annual turnover.

Crypto-assets are principally regulated by the EU Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA). Their legal classification depends on their characteristics: assets qualifying as financial instruments fall under securities legislation, while other crypto-assets may fall within MiCA.

Since 1 July 2026, providing crypto-asset services in France requires authorisation as a crypto-asset service provider (CASP). Knowingly providing crypto-asset services without the required authorisation is punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to EUR30,000. Failure by a CASP to notify the AMF that it no longer meets applicable authorisation requirements, or providing inaccurate information, is punishable by up to one year’s imprisonment and a fine of up to EUR15,000.

Crypto-assets may be the object or proceeds of general criminal offences, including fraud, breach of trust, concealment and money laundering, and may be seized or confiscated. Market abuse rules also expressly cover relevant crypto-assets, including insider dealing, market manipulation and dissemination of false or misleading information.

CASPs are also subject to anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing obligations, including customer due diligence, record-keeping and suspicious transaction reporting to TRACFIN. Regulatory breaches may result in administrative sanctions, including withdrawal of authorisation.

Most defences available under French law are common to general crime: whether the investigation can be annulled on procedural grounds, whether prosecution is time-barred under the relevant statute of limitations, and whether the prosecution has established the three constituent elements required for most offences: a legal ground corresponding to the situation, the relevant facts and the intent to perpetrate the offence (most offences require intent under French law).

Legal entities may also raise a specific defence by disputing that acts committed by one of their representatives should give rise to their criminal liability.

Top executives can raise another defence: they can claim they have delegated their responsibility – including criminal consequences – to subordinates, but the conditions for this delegation to operate are rather strict.

Under French law as it stands, having a compliance programme does not in itself exclude a company’s criminal liability. This may change: Directive (EU) 2026/1021, adopted in April 2026, requires member states, France included, to transpose by 1 June 2028 a rule making legal entities criminally liable where a lack of supervision or control by a person in a leading position made possible the commission, for the entity’s benefit, of a corruption offence by a person under its authority. The directive does not create a UK-style “adequate procedures” defence, but a robust compliance programme will likely be central to contesting this offence, since it bears directly on whether supervision was lacking. Compliance efforts are also relevant at sentencing, as the directive expressly treats them as a mitigating factor.

This does not exist under French criminal law.

For most white-collar offences, French law authorises the negotiation of guilty pleas between defendants and public prosecutors (comparution sur reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité, CRPC), whereby certain charges can be withdrawn and a sentence agreed upon. The agreed terms must be approved by a judge.

A guilty plea, when approved by the judge, has similar effects to a judgment: the conviction and sentence are mentioned on the criminal record of the defendant.

While both individuals and legal entities are eligible to enter into guilty pleas, only the latter can benefit from deferred prosecution agreements (convention judiciaire d’intérêt public, CJIP) – ie, agreements under which a fine and other remedies are accepted in exchange for the absence of a trial and any finding of guilt.

CJIPs are negotiated with public prosecutors and must be approved by a judge. They do not involve any criminal record.

Self-disclosure is an explicit mitigating factor for CJIPs; the same applies to active co-operation with the authorities, conducting and sharing with them the results of internal investigations; as well as putting in place or improving compliance programmes.

French law protects whistle-blowers. Subject to the individual being in good faith and not having a direct financial interest in the report, employees and various categories of partners of a company can report facts likely to constitute an offence, either to the company or directly to the relevant authorities.

Companies with at least 50 employees must establish an internal reporting procedure ensuring the confidentiality of the whistle-blower’s identity, and a process to evaluate, investigate and rule on the situation described.

Retaliation against whistle-blowers is prohibited.

French law does not generally provide financial compensation for whistle-blowers, except in certain circumstances involving the tax authorities.

Co-ordination of defence in the face of multijurisdictional investigations is crucial since various factors can make a standalone domestic strategy detrimental to a defendant. Certain facts can qualify as an offence in one country and not in another (or not at the same point in time); statutes of limitations can apply differently; compliance with sectoral regulations (eg, banking, for money laundering) can be more efficient in certain places than in others; legal privilege can be asserted in certain situations in one place but not in another. Worse, a limited waiver of legal privilege in one country may result in the loss of legal privilege more generally elsewhere.

This means that raising an argument or not raising it can have positive effects in one jurisdiction and negative effects in another.

This is all the more important because international co-operation between investigative authorities is now highly effective within the European Union: requests from one member state to another for co-operation are generally deemed prima facie reasonable, as are requests involving many countries with which France or the EU have mutual legal assistance instruments in place.

The protection afforded to defendants against multiple trials for the same facts (the double jeopardy exception) is also limited under French law in relation to trials taking place in EU or Schengen countries. The same does not apply, for instance, to judgments from the UK or USA.

Similarly, French prosecutors are not prevented from entering into deferred prosecution agreements (CJIPs) by the negotiation of similar DPAs in parallel with other authorities outside France.

Unlike several member states, France has not, since 2022, created a domestic sanctions regime mirroring those implemented at EU level. The influence of the European model is nevertheless apparent in the steady expansion of the administrative authorities’ power to freeze assets, a power that may be extended further in the years ahead, but is also likely to be litigated, including before France’s Constitutional Council.

The Monetary and Financial Code allows the Ministers for the Economy and the Interior to freeze any person’s assets for six months, renewable, without requiring a prior conviction or the involvement of a judge. Initially confined to counter-terrorism, this power has been extended by two recent laws to cover new grounds: the Law of 25 July 2024 on foreign interference, covering acts carried out at the request of, or on behalf of, a foreign power that undermine the fundamental interests of the Nation; and the Law of 13 June 2025 on drug trafficking, covering persons involved in trafficking that poses a particularly serious threat to public security and order.

The trend is likely to continue: a bill introduced in January 2026 targets dissolved radical groups, while another, announced in spring 2026, targets “separatism and entryism”. Administrative asset freezes may thus become in French law what restrictive measures have become at EU level: a policing tool used ever more broadly, at the expense of Rule of Law guarantees such as the presumption of innocence, judicial protection and the right to property.