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 fraudulent 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 proceedings, 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. Proceedings 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 distortions or the dissemination of deceptive information. In these instances, civil proceedings may be brought independently or concurrently, offering a parallel route for recovery and strategic leverage in complex disputes.

There are circumstances in which initiating civil proceedings is particularly appropriate, especially where the objective is swift compensation, where the evidentiary elements are already available or where the underlying conduct involves breaches of contract or commercial misrepresentation 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 inducement (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.

Under French law, bribery is a criminal offence prosecuted as a misdemeanour (délit), with separate provisions addressing conduct in both the public and private sectors. Articles 433-1 and 433-2 of the French Criminal Code govern bribery involving public officials (personnes dépositaires de l’autorité publique), while Article 434-9 addresses corruption within the judiciary. In the private sector, Articles 445-1 and 445-2 criminalise 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 strengthened France’s anti-corruption regime by introducing 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-operation with authorities and adherence to the negotiated terms.

Several civil and labour law mechanisms are also available to claimants whose agent has received a bribe. The principal cause of action lies in bringing a civil claim for damages under Article 1240 of the French Civil Code, where the claimant can demonstrate that the bribe caused direct material or moral harm. Civil party applications (constitution de partie civile) are generally admissible, particularly where the financial loss is identifiable or where reputational damage has occurred. From an employment law perspective, the acceptance of a bribe constitutes a serious breach of contractual duties and may justify immediate termination. In the public sector, disciplinary measures may also apply. Finally, where a claimant is considering legal action, it is essential to assess whether there is any risk of being implicated in the scheme (directly or through negligence) given the evolving EU framework on duty of care, which may give rise to liability where entities fail to ensure integrity in their commercial relationships.

Under French criminal law, any individual who knowingly facilitates the commission of a fraud, whether by assisting the perpetrator before, during, or after the offence, may be prosecuted as an accomplice (Articles 121-6 and 121-7 of the French Criminal Code). Accomplices face the same penalties as principal offenders, including criminal sanctions and joint and several liability for civil damages awarded to victims (Article 2 of the French Criminal Procedure Code (see also Articles 375-2, 480-1 and 543)).

Civil claims may be brought in tandem with criminal proceedings or separately, to recover losses from both principal offenders and those who aided or concealed the fraud. The victim may join criminal proceedings as a civil party or initiate a standalone civil action under Article 1240 of the French Civil Code, particularly in cases where evidentiary thresholds are met more easily or where criminal proceedings are not pursued.

The receipt of fraudulently obtained property (recel) constitutes a distinct and serious offence under Articles 321-1 to 321-5 of the French Criminal Code. To establish liability for recel, prosecutors must demonstrate that the recipient knowingly benefitted from property derived from criminal conduct. This offence is frequently used to target entities or individuals who did not directly commit the fraud but profited from its proceeds, including financial intermediaries or third parties involved in laundering or hiding assets.

Limitation periods for fraud-related claims in France depend on the legal forum and whether the action is of a criminal or civil nature.

When the victim joins criminal proceedings as a civil party, the limitation period for the civil claim aligns with that of the criminal offence under Article 10 of the French Criminal Procedure Code. Conversely, where the victim proceeds before a civil court, the limitation period is governed by the French Civil Code.

For civil actions based on fraud, the general limitation period is five years from the date on which the claimant became aware, or should reasonably have become aware, of the facts giving rise to the claim (Article 2224 of the French Civil Code). This discovery-based trigger is particularly relevant in fraud matters, where concealment is often an issue.

For criminal proceedings, the applicable limitation period depends on the legal classification of the offence:

• 20 years for serious crimes (crimes) (Article 7 of the Criminal Procedure Code);
• six years for misdemeanours (délits), which includes most fraud-related offences (Article 8); and
• one year for minor infractions (contraventions) (Article 9).

Limitation periods in both civil and criminal contexts may be suspended or interrupted in various circumstances, such as the initiation of proceedings, acknowledgement of the claim by the defendant or the occurrence of events that temporarily prevent action, extending the timeframe available to claimants (see Articles 9-1 to 9-3 of the French Criminal Procedure Code and Articles 2240 et seq of the French Civil Code).

In practice, most fraud claims proceed under the six-year limitation applicable to misdemeanours, but claimants must carefully assess the interplay between discovery rules, procedural delays and the type of forum selected.

Under French law, although the concept of a "proprietary claim" as understood in common law does not exist in the same form, some mechanisms do allow for the protection of victims of fraud.

While French law does not recognise a proprietary claim in the common law sense, several mechanisms exist to secure the restitution of assets misappropriated or transferred through fraud, both in criminal and insolvency contexts.

Criminal Seizure and Confiscation

In criminal proceedings, assets that constitute the direct or indirect proceeds of fraud, or were used in its commission, may be seized and later confiscated (Article 131-21 and Articles 706-141 et seq of the French Criminal Code). These measures can be ordered prior to conviction, allowing authorities to preserve the assets during investigation and trial. Management of seized assets is handled by the national agency (the “AGRASC”), which administers everything from bank accounts to real estate property and is entitled to sell the seized property for the benefit of the state.

Where proceeds of fraud have been reinvested or co-mingled with legitimate assets, confiscation may only extend to the portion traceable to the unlawful origin. In this context, restitution to victims remains possible throughout the criminal proceedings. Victims can assert their rights before the trial court or through a post-seizure claim under Article 481 of the French Criminal Procedure Code.

Impact of Investment Gains

French law adheres to the principle of full compensation without enrichment. Victims are entitled to restitution of the original value of the misappropriated property, but not to any gains generated through its investment. Accordingly, profits earned on fraudulently acquired assets, however substantial, do not increase the amount of compensation.

Insolvency Considerations

In insolvency, a civil party’s claim for damages arising from criminal wrongdoing ranks as an unsecured debt unless specific guarantees apply. The claim arises at the moment the harm occurs, but the creditor’s ability to recover depends on timely filing and the availability of assets. If the amount of damages is determined after the opening of insolvency proceedings, the filing deadline runs from the final judgment (Article L.622-24 of the French Commercial Code).

While proprietary remedies remain limited under French law, victims may nonetheless pursue seizure, confiscation or priority restitution in the framework of criminal proceedings, provided they act promptly and with a clear evidentiary basis.

Pre-action conduct in fraud-related matters depends on whether proceedings are pursued before civil or criminal courts. Each route is governed by distinct procedural frameworks and strategic considerations often dictate which path to follow.

Criminal Route – Initiating Proceedings as a Civil Party

Victims of fraud may initiate criminal proceedings by filing a plainte simple with the public prosecutor. If no action is taken within three months, or if the complaint is formally dismissed (classement sans suite), the victim may escalate the matter through a plainte avec constitution de partie civile. This is a civil party complaint that triggers a formal investigation by an investigative judge (Articles 85 and 88 of the French Criminal Procedure Code). This mechanism allows the victim to obtain investigative measures, including seizures, witness interviews and forensic examinations, even where the prosecutor has declined to act.

However, this route requires evidence of direct and personal harm and may involve payment of a judicial deposit (consignation) set by the judge. Once accepted, the case becomes adversarial and typically results in the appointment of an investigative judge (juge d’instruction). This is a powerful tool in complex fraud matters.

Civil Route – Evidentiary Strategy and Procedural Obligations

In civil proceedings, the burden of proof lies squarely with the claimant, as French civil courts apply the principle of party initiative (principe dispositif). Pre-action discovery is not automatic but Article 145 of the French Civil Procedure Code allows a party to seek investigative measures in futurum, before trial, where there is a legitimate risk that key evidence may be lost. These requests may be filed ex parte to preserve the element of surprise.

For claims exceeding EUR5,000, Article 750-1 of the French Civil Procedure Code imposes a mandatory attempt at alternative dispute resolution prior to initiating proceedings, although this requirement is typically waived in fraud-related cases given the public interest and gravity of the allegations.

In both forums, careful preparation and early procedural engagement, whether through criminal filings or protective civil measures, can significantly affect the outcome and strategic leverage of the case.

French law provides effective interim measures to prevent the dissipation of assets pending judgment. These mechanisms are primarily in rem and operate through both civil and criminal channels, although they differ in scope, procedure and evidentiary thresholds.

Civil Route – Protective Seizures

Under Article L.511-1 of the French Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, a creditor may seek authorisation to impose conservatory measures (mesures conservatoires), such as asset freezes or judicial liens, without prior notice to the debtor. To obtain this authorisation, the claimant must demonstrate that the claim appears well-founded in principle and that there is a legitimate risk of non-recovery.

These measures attach directly to the debtor’s assets (bank accounts, movable property, real estate) and the request is typically submitted ex parte to preserve the element of surprise. No cross-undertaking in damages is required but the creditor may be held liable under Article L.512-2 if the seizure causes undue harm and the measure is ultimately lifted.

If a third party (eg, a bank) is subject to the seizure, it is required to co-operate with the enforcing bailiff (commissaire de justice) and disclose relevant information. Failure to comply, or providing false or incomplete data, may result in financial liability and, in some cases, criminal sanctions under Articles R.523-4 and R.523-5 of the French Civil Procedure Code. Any person who intentionally diverts or destroys seized property may face up to three years in jail and a fine of EUR375,000 under Article 314-6 of the French Criminal Code.

Criminal Route – Seizure of Criminal Assets

In criminal proceedings, prosecutors and investigating judges may order asset freezes as part of the investigation. These can be implemented at any stage, including pre-indictment, under Articles 706-141 et seq of the French Criminal Procedure Code. The purpose is to secure the proceeds or instrumentalities of the offence, with a view to eventual confiscation or restitution. These criminal measures are independent of civil enforcement actions and follow their own procedural rules.

Cross-Undertaking in Damages

French law does not recognise the common law concept of a cross-undertaking in damages. However, the judge retains discretion to impose sanctions or indemnities on claimants who abuse the conservatory process or act in bad faith.

French law does not provide for a general discovery mechanism compelling a defendant to disclose the full extent of their assets. Asset disclosure is not a routine part of litigation and there is no equivalent to common law disclosure or discovery obligations. Asset identification must instead be pursued through targeted procedural tools, often without the co-operation of the defendant.

Banking Secrecy and Limitations

The principle of banking secrecy, enshrined in Article L.511-33 of the French Monetary and Financial Code, limits access to information held by financial institutions. This can significantly restrict a claimant’s ability to trace or identify the defendant’s assets, particularly in civil matters. Judges are reluctant to override this secrecy without a clear and compelling legal basis.

Pre-Litigation Measures to Identify Assets

While French law does not mandate asset disclosure, Article 145 of the French Civil Procedure Code provides a strategic entry point. It allows parties to obtain pre-action investigative measures, typically through an ex parte application, aimed at preserving or establishing evidence that may influence the outcome of future proceedings. This mechanism is frequently used to identify the location or composition of assets when there is a legitimate concern that evidence may be lost or concealed.

Criminal Proceedings and Investigative Powers

In criminal proceedings, investigating judges and public prosecutors have broader powers to obtain financial and asset-related information, including through requisitions to banks, registries and tax authorities. These tools are not available to civil litigants but may be accessed indirectly by joining as a civil party to the criminal investigation (constitution de partie civile).

Cross-Undertaking in Damages

French law does not require a claimant to give a cross-undertaking in damages as a condition for seeking asset-related measures.

French law provides targeted mechanisms to secure evidence at risk of disappearance, destruction or suppression, both in civil and criminal contexts. These measures are critical in fraud-related matters where evidentiary fragility is often a concern.

Civil Proceedings – Article 145 of the Civil Procedure Code

In civil litigation, the primary tool for preserving evidence is Article 145 of the French Civil Procedure Code. This provision authorises a party, even before initiating proceedings, to seek judicial authorisation to carry out investigative measures where “legitimate grounds” exist to preserve or establish the evidence of facts on which the resolution of a future dispute may depend. These measures may include document production, expert reports or site inspections.

These requests are frequently made ex parte to avoid tipping off the opposing party, particularly in fraud cases where the risk of tampering is acute. When granted, the order is executed by a judicial officer and the affected party is only notified after the measures are carried out. There is no requirement for a cross-undertaking in damages.

Criminal Proceedings – Investigatory Powers

In criminal proceedings, the public prosecutor (procureur de la République) or an investigating judge (juge d’instruction) has broad authority to seize evidence during both preliminary investigations (enquête préliminaire) and flagrant investigations (enquête de flagrance). These searches may target any location linked to the alleged offence and may be conducted without the suspect’s consent, particularly during a flagrante delicto investigation or under judicial supervision.

Evidence collected through these means may include electronic data, financial records or correspondence. Victims participating as civil parties may request specific acts of investigation but the final decision rests with the investigative authorities.

Access to Premises

Physical searches of a defendant’s residence or business are not available to private parties in civil matters. These intrusions fall exclusively within the domain of criminal proceedings and their legality is tightly circumscribed by procedural safeguards, including judicial authorisation and the presence of a neutral third party.

French law does not offer broad discovery mechanisms comparable to common law systems, but targeted disclosure from third parties is available under specific procedural frameworks, primarily Article 145 of the French Civil Procedure Code in civil matters and the investigatory powers of prosecutorial authorities in criminal proceedings.

Civil Proceedings – Limited Third-Party Disclosure

In civil litigation, a party may request a judge to order the disclosure of documents held by a third party if these documents are essential to the resolution of the dispute. This request must be specific and proportionate. Before the initiation of proceedings, Article 145 of the French Civil Procedure Code allows a party to seek measures aimed at preserving or establishing proof, which may include orders to produce documents or allow access to information.

However, third-party disclosure in civil matters remains exceptional and is strictly limited to what is necessary. Courts are reluctant to authorise fishing expeditions. The use of evidence obtained through Article 145 proceedings is restricted to the purposes identified in the judicial order, and any misuse may be challenged as an abuse of process.

Criminal Proceedings – Broader Investigatory Reach

In criminal investigations, prosecutors and investigating judges have significantly broader authority to obtain documents or data from third parties, including banks, telecom operators and other institutions. They may issue requisitions (réquisitions judiciaires) for information or carry out searches and seizures without prior notice.

These powers extend to digital and financial evidence and are often essential in complex fraud investigations involving structured concealment or asset transfers through intermediaries.

French law allows for certain procedural measures, particularly in civil fraud matters, to be obtained on an ex parte basis, without prior notification to the intended defendant. These orders are primarily governed by Article 145 of the French Civil Procedure Code, which enables claimants to seek urgent investigative measures aimed at securing evidence before trial.

Ex Parte Requests Under Article 145 of the French Civil Procedure Code

Where there is a legitimate reason to believe that key evidence may be lost, concealed or destroyed, a party may file a request for summary proceedings (référé) or petition (requête), depending on whether adversarial debate is feasible. Judges often grant these requests without notice to preserve the element of surprise, which is critical in fraud-related cases involving the risk of evidence tampering.

The applicant must demonstrate:

• the relevance and necessity of the proposed measure;
• the urgency or risk of evidence loss; and
• the proportionality of the interference with the rights of the opposing party.

Post-Execution Remedies for Affected Parties

Once the measure is executed, the defendant or third party affected is notified and may challenge its legality or scope. Courts are particularly attentive to ensuring the protection of fundamental rights, including professional secrecy and the right to due process.

No Cross-Undertaking in Damages

Unlike in common law jurisdictions, French law does not require the applicant to give a cross-undertaking in damages when seeking ex parte measures. However, if the measure is later found to be abusive or unjustified, the applicant may be held liable for damages.

Victims of fraud in France routinely pursue redress through the criminal process, often by joining the proceedings as a civil party (partie civile) to seek compensation directly within the criminal forum. This dual track, combining public prosecution with private reparation, remains a cornerstone of French procedural law.

Joining Criminal Proceedings as a Civil Party

A victim may initiate a complaint directly with the juge d’instruction or join ongoing criminal proceedings once charges are brought. This mechanism provides procedural standing to request investigative measures, monitor the prosecution and claim damages. It is particularly effective where the fraud is complex, cross-border or requires law enforcement intervention to obtain evidence.

Impact on Civil Proceedings

Although civil and criminal proceedings are formally distinct, the civil courts may suspend related actions pending the outcome of the criminal trial, particularly where the facts are intertwined or the outcome of the criminal case may influence the determination of liability. This suspension is discretionary and aims to avoid contradictory judgments.

Flexibility to Withdraw or Bifurcate Claims

A victim who has joined the criminal process is not permanently bound to it. They may later withdraw and pursue compensation through standalone civil litigation, especially where the criminal case stalls, is dismissed or proves ineffective as a recovery avenue. Conversely, initiating a civil claim does not preclude later participation in criminal proceedings, provided legal conditions are met and statutes of limitation observed.

Under French procedural law, a judgment may be rendered without a full adversarial trial, including in cases where a party fails to appear or the defence is manifestly unsubstantiated. This applies across civil and criminal proceedings, although the legal basis and procedural consequences vary depending on the nature of the case and the applicable jurisdiction.

Civil Proceedings

French civil procedure distinguishes between:

• judgments deemed adversarial (jugements réputés contradictoires): where the defendant has been properly served, particularly through personal service, but fails to appear, the court may proceed to judgment. These decisions are subject to appeal and considered adversarial in nature under Articles 467 and 473 of the French Civil Procedure Code; and
• default judgments (jugements par défaut): when the summons has not been personally served and the defendant does not appear, the judgment is rendered by default. The appropriate remedy is an opposition (Articles 571 to 578 of the French Civil Procedure Code), which allows the case to be re-heard by the same court.

French law also allows for summary proceedings (référé) and ex parte applications (requête) where urgency or legitimate grounds justify the absence of prior notice, although these mechanisms are limited in scope and subject to strict conditions.

Criminal Proceedings

In criminal matters, the defendant’s absence may also lead to a judgment without a full trial, but the rules depend on the type of offence:

• police tribunal (contraventions): where the summons was not personally served and the defendant fails to appear, the judgment is rendered by default and may be challenged by opposition (Articles 412 and 545 of the French Criminal Procedure Code). If the defendant was personally summoned but does not attend, the judgment is deemed adversarial;
• tribunal correctionnel (délits): the same principles apply. Where the defendant is represented by counsel or was personally summoned, the judgment is adversarial. Otherwise, it is rendered by default and subject to opposition (Articles 410 and 489 et seq of the French Criminal Procedure Code); and
• cour d’assises (crimes): the presence of the accused is mandatory at trial. Where the accused is absent and evading justice, the court may proceed under the jugement par défaut criminel procedure (Articles 379-2 et seq of the French Criminal Procedure Code). No appeal is possible, but if the person later appears or is arrested before the limitation period expires, the judgment is automatically set aside and a new trial is held.

In all instances, the procedural classification, whether adversarial or default, determines the remedies available to the absent party and ensures compliance with the adversarial principle. Courts also retain discretion to rule on the merits where the defence is clearly without substance, although the judgment must still conform to procedural safeguards.

There are no specific procedural rules or heightened pleading requirements applicable to fraud as compared with other criminal offences. As with any criminal charge, it is necessary to establish that all the constituent elements of fraudulent conduct, as defined under the French Criminal Code, separately for each offence (eg, Article 313-1), are satisfied, with no material ambiguity as to the existence of intent. However, in the context of proving fraud, particular emphasis must be placed on the precise quantification of the loss resulting from the fraudulent conduct.

In France, criminal proceedings may be initiated against unidentified perpetrators through a plainte contre X. This mechanism enables victims to file a complaint where the author of the offence is unknown, allowing judicial authorities to investigate based on available factual elements. It is particularly common in complex fraud cases, where the perpetrator’s identity may initially be obscured by layers of intermediaries or digital anonymity.

Upon receipt of a plainte contre X, the public prosecutor may open a preliminary investigation or refer the matter to an investigating judge, depending on the seriousness of the offence and the complexity of the facts. The aim is to identify the person(s) responsible through investigative measures such as subpoenas, forensic analysis or witness hearings. If the perpetrator is later identified, the proceedings may proceed in the ordinary manner.

By contrast, civil proceedings cannot be brought against unidentified parties. The identity of the defendant is a condition precedent to validly initiating proceedings before the civil courts, as it is required for proper service of the claim. In the absence of a named party, the court has no jurisdiction to hear the case.

Accordingly, while French criminal procedure allows for effective initiation of proceedings against unknown fraudsters, the civil route remains unavailable unless and until the responsible party is identified.

In criminal proceedings, French law provides for a robust framework to compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses. Under Article 101 of the French Criminal Procedure Code, the investigating judge may summon any individual whose evidence may assist the investigation. A duly summoned witness is legally obliged to appear, take an oath and testify truthfully. Refusal to comply may result in coercive measures, including being brought by force before the judge (Article 109 of the French Criminal Procedure Code) and is punishable by criminal sanctions. False testimony is prosecuted as perjury under Article 434-13 of the French Criminal Code.

Witnesses may be heard directly by the judge or by judicial police officers acting under the judge’s delegation. The public prosecutor and civil parties may also request specific witnesses be heard.

In civil proceedings, courts have discretionary authority to compel individuals to testify, provided they are not legally exempt. Article 206 of the French Civil Procedure Code excludes certain categories of witnesses, such as close family members, from the obligation to testify. If a party fails to appear or refuses to give evidence without lawful justification, the judge may draw adverse inferences or impose a financial penalty.

While civil courts lack the coercive investigatory powers of criminal judges, they may nonetheless order testimonial evidence through formal procedures, including witness summonses and judicial hearings (auditions de témoins).

Under French law, corporate entities (personnes morales) may incur criminal liability where an offence is committed on their behalf by one of their organs or legal representatives (Article 121-2 of the French Criminal Code). This attribution mechanism allows prosecutors to pursue legal persons independently of or in addition to the individuals directly involved.

The liability of a company does not preclude the personal criminal responsibility of the individuals acting as perpetrators or accomplices. In practice, prosecutors often charge the legal entity and relevant executives or directors, particularly in cases involving internal fraud, misappropriation or corruption.

The scope of criminal liability extends to all legal persons, including commercial companies, associations and public entities, except the French State itself, which enjoys immunity. However, public law bodies such as municipalities or public institutions may be held liable for offences committed in the context of activities that could have been delegated to private actors.

Sanctions applicable to legal entities include fines (which may be up to five times those imposed on natural persons, per Article 131-38), dissolution, placement under judicial supervision, exclusion from public procurement and confiscation of assets. These penalties may be imposed cumulatively, depending on the seriousness of the offence and the corporate entity’s role in its commission.

French law does not recognise piercing the corporate veil as a general principle. However, claims may be brought directly against ultimate beneficial owners (UBOs) in specific circumstances where they are personally implicated in the fraudulent conduct.

Criminal liability may be incurred where a UBO has knowingly participated in, orchestrated or benefitted from the fraudulent scheme. This includes offences such as money laundering (Article 324-1 of the French Criminal Code), misuse of corporate assets (abus de biens sociaux, Articles L.241-3 and L.242-6 of the French Commercial Code), or receiving the proceeds of crime (recel, Article 321-1 of the French Criminal Code). Liability requires demonstration of personal involvement or knowledge.

UBOs may also face liability under civil law if their conduct meets the criteria for personal fault under Article 1240 of the French Civil Code, or in the context of fraudulent representation, particularly where the corporate entity has been used abusively as a façade to shield personal misconduct.

Identification of beneficial owners is supported by the national register created pursuant to Articles L.561-45-1 et seq of the French Monetary and Financial Code, although access to this register is now restricted following a decision of the Conseil d’État in 2023. In practice, judicial authorities may compel production of this information in the context of investigations or proceedings involving financial crime.

French law provides shareholders with the ability to bring claims against directors whose conduct, such as fraud, concealment or misappropriation, has harmed the company or its shareholders. This may take the form of a derivative or personal action.

The derivative action (action sociale ut singuli) allows shareholders to bring an action to claim damages for the harm suffered by the company, against one or more directors for breaches of duty. It is governed by:

• Article L. 225-252 of the French Commercial Code (société anonyme);
• Article L. 223-22, paragraph 2 of the French Commercial Code (société à responsabilité limitée);
• Article L. 227-12, by reference to Article L. 225-252, of the French Commercial Code (société par actions simplifiée); and
• Article 1843-5 of the French Civil Code (société civile).

These actions may be initiated without prior shareholder approval. If successful, any damages awarded are paid to the company itself.

Where a shareholder suffers direct personal harm, such as by being misled into investing by fraudulent statements, an individual tort claim may also be brought under Article 1240 of the French Civil Code.

Finally, where the facts amount to a criminal offence (eg, misuse of corporate assets), shareholders may act as civil parties (parties civiles) in criminal proceedings to seek compensation before the competent criminal court.

French courts may assert jurisdiction over foreign defendants in fraud-related claims under clearly established legal bases, whether in criminal or civil proceedings.

Criminal Proceedings

French criminal courts have wide jurisdictional reach. Under Article 113-2 of the French Criminal Code, French criminal law applies to all offences committed on French territory, or where a constituent element of the offence occurred in France. This includes acts preparatory to fraud, such as conspiracy or the receipt of illicit proceeds.

Jurisdiction is also extended in cases where the offence was committed abroad as follows.

• Article 113-6 allows prosecution of offences committed abroad by French nationals.
• Article 113-7 applies to offences committed abroad against French nationals.
• Article 113-10 allows jurisdiction where the offence threatens the fundamental interests of the French Republic.
• Under Article 689-1 of the French Criminal Procedure Code, French courts may exercise universal jurisdiction over certain grave offences, provided the suspect is present in France.

Civil and Commercial Proceedings

In civil and commercial fraud claims, French courts may assert jurisdiction over multiple parties, including those based abroad, where the conditions for connection between claims (connexité) are met. This includes cases where:

• one or more fraudulent acts took place in France;
• the economic harm was suffered in France; and
• one of the co-defendants is domiciled in France and the claims against foreign parties are sufficiently connected to be tried together (to avoid contradictory decisions).

Additional mechanisms are available for foreign investors or third parties seeking damages after a conviction or regulatory sanction for fraud. Victims may initiate civil proceedings in France, particularly in the context of follow-on actions (notably in securities or consumer protection cases). Group actions may also be brought, although these are limited to specific areas and subject to strict procedural conditions.

In Civil and Commercial Matters

Within the EU

EU Regulation 2020/1784 of 25 November 2020 applies when a document needs to be transmitted from one member state to another for service or notification in civil and commercial matters, with the exception of tax, customs or administrative matters and regarding state liability.

The document is transmitted directly from the originating entity to the requested entity, which must carry out or arrange for the service as soon as possible, and in any case, within one month of receipt by the requested entity.

The Regulation also provides other means of service to speed up the process, such as service by diplomatic or consular agents, through postal services, electronically or by direct service (Articles 16 et seq).

In other foreign countries

The 1965 Hague Convention (the “Convention de la Haye”) provides for the service of documents in civil and commercial matters through the central authority of the requested state, which delivers the document according to its own national rules or in the particular form requested by the applicant.

The Convention de la Haye also provides, under certain conditions, alternatives such as service via diplomatic or consular channels (Article 8), postal notification (Article 10), service by a local bailiff or competent authority or agreements between states to use other methods of transmission.

In criminal matters

In the same way, the service of decisions in criminal matters is governed by judicial co-operation conventions in criminal matters (1959) and the Articles of the French Criminal Procedure Code, which provide for the transmission of the act or decision to the recipient through the public prosecutor.

For non-EU countries, this service occurs in line with the bilateral agreements concluded with each country.

Judgments rendered by French courts become enforceable once they acquire the force of res judicata, that is, when they are no longer subject to any suspensive appeal. If not voluntarily complied with, they may be executed through formal enforcement proceedings.

Execution is carried out by a bailiff (commissaire de justice), who is empowered to implement a wide range of enforcement measures. These include:

• seizure of bank accounts (saisie-attribution);
• seizure of movable assets (saisie-vente);
• attachment of wages (saisie des rémunérations); and
• seizure and judicial sale of real estate (saisie immobilière).

Enforcement may only proceed once the decision has been formally served with the enforcement formula (formule exécutoire). A valid enforcement title (titre exécutoire) is required, such as a final judgment or an order with provisional enforcement.

Where assets are located abroad, enforcement will depend on the existence of a bilateral or multilateral treaty allowing for recognition and execution of the French decision in the foreign jurisdiction.

Foreign judgments may only be enforced in France upon successful completion of the exequatur procedure unless an international instrument provides otherwise.

Under Article 509 of the French Civil Procedure Code, a foreign judgment cannot produce enforceable effects in France unless it is formally recognised. In the absence of a treaty, the conditions for exequatur have been set by case law and require the applicant to establish that:

• the foreign court had jurisdiction under French conflict of laws rules;
• the decision does not contravene international public policy; and
• there is no fraud, either in the substantive ruling or in the choice of forum.

Where applicable, enforcement may also proceed under international or regional instruments. Notably:

• EU Regulation No 1215/2012 (Brussels I bis) allows for automatic recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments between EU member states without a declaration of enforceability; and
• the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019, once ratified, will provide a harmonised framework for the enforcement of judgments among signatory states.

In criminal matters, enforcement of foreign decisions is governed by the French Criminal Procedure Code (Articles 713 et seq) and applicable bilateral conventions. Where no such agreement exists, enforcement is subject to the discretion of the French authorities and co-operation may prove impractical.

In criminal proceedings under French law, the right to remain silent is a fundamental safeguard. It is expressly recognised in Article 63-1 of the French Criminal Procedure Code, which requires that any person placed in police custody be immediately informed of their right to remain silent.

This principle has been reaffirmed by the French Constitutional Council, which has recognised it as having constitutional value. It applies throughout the criminal process, from police custody to trial, and must be clearly communicated by the authorities at each procedural stage where the individual is questioned as a suspect.

Failure to advise the defendant of this right constitutes a serious procedural violation, rendering any resulting conviction void. In practice, invoking the right to silence cannot be used as evidence of guilt. However, a defendant’s silence may be taken into account when assessing overall procedural co-operation, particularly in cases involving negotiation mechanisms such as the CJIP (see 1.2 Causes of Action After Receipt of a Bribe).

By contrast, in civil proceedings, there is no equivalent privilege. A party cannot refuse to provide evidence on the basis that it may be self-incriminating. However, a civil court’s powers to compel testimony or disclosure are more limited in scope than those of criminal authorities.

In France, legal professional privilege is governed by Article 66-5 of the Law of 31 December 1971 and Article 2.2 of the Règlement Intérieur National (RIN) of the French Bar. It is absolute, general and unlimited in time, applying to all exchanges between a lawyer and their client, whether oral or written, and extending to consultations, correspondence, meeting notes and any document prepared in the context of legal advice or representation.

It cannot be waived by the client or circumvented through judicial orders. However, where a lawyer is personally implicated in the commission of an offence, such as aiding or abetting fraudulent activity, the protection may be lifted under strict judicial supervision.

Searches of law firms are subject to specific procedural safeguards under Article 56-1 of the French Criminal Procedure Code. They must be authorised by a judge, conducted in the presence of the Bâtonnier (head of the Bar) and strictly limited to documents relevant to the offence being investigated. These protections are rigorously applied and enforced.

In summary, while French law maintains a robust and categorical approach to legal professional privilege, it does not shield communications that are themselves instrumental to the perpetration of fraud.

Under French law, the concept of punitive or exemplary damages does not exist. Damages awarded in both civil and criminal proceedings are strictly compensatory in nature and must correspond to the actual loss suffered by the victim. Courts are not permitted to award damages intended to punish the wrongdoer or to deter future misconduct beyond the strict measure of harm caused.

This principle applies uniformly, including in fraud claims. Whether the action is brought before a civil court under Article 1240 of the French Civil Code or before a criminal court acting upon constitution de partie civile, the amount of compensation must reflect proven material or moral damage.

The only limited exception arises under the mechanism of the CJIP introduced by the Sapin II Law. In this context, legal entities under investigation for corruption, influence peddling or related offences may agree to pay a public interest fine of up to 30% of average annual turnover. However, this fine is negotiated with prosecutors, does not constitute judicial damages and is payable to the French Treasury and not to victims.

Punitive elements in French enforcement are accordingly reserved for criminal or quasi-criminal sanctions imposed by the state and not for private claims for damages.

Banking secrecy is firmly enshrined in French law under Article L.511-33 of the French Monetary and Financial Code, which imposes a strict obligation of confidentiality on credit institutions, finance companies and certain financial service providers. This duty extends to all information related to clients and their transactions.

However, the principle is not absolute. Several legal mechanisms allow for the lifting of banking secrecy, particularly in fraud-related matters. French law permits disclosure where explicitly authorised by statute or judicial authority. Notably, the obligation of secrecy may be waived:

• in criminal proceedings. Banking secrecy does not preclude judicial requisitions, search and seizure orders or production of documents when authorised by a judge or conducted under the supervision of the public prosecutor;
• in civil enforcement. Bailiffs (commissaires de justice) may request disclosure from banks in the execution of court orders; and

• for regulatory purposes. Institutions such as the French anti-money laundering authority (the TRACFIN), the ACPR and tax authorities also benefit from exemptions allowing them to access protected banking information.

A breach of banking secrecy remains a criminal offence under Article 226-13 of the French Criminal Code and is punishable by imprisonment and fines. However, where statutory exceptions apply, disclosure is not only permissible but compulsory.

In practice, fraud litigants may obtain banking records through discovery mechanisms under Article 145 of the French Civil Procedure Code, or by participating as civil parties in criminal proceedings, where investigative powers permit broader access to financial data.

French law recognises crypto-assets (actifs numériques) as a sui generis category of intangible assets. Defined in Article L.54-10-1 of the French Monetary and Financial Code, the term encompasses digital tokens and other digital representations of value that are not issued or guaranteed by a central bank, not pegged to legal tender and are used as a means of exchange or investment.

While crypto-assets are not classified as legal currency, they are treated as property and may be subject to proprietary measures, including seizure and freezing. Under French procedural law, they may be included in a debtor’s estate and, in principle, seized in the same manner as traditional assets, provided the enforcement authority is able to access the asset, typically through control of the private key or relevant digital wallet.

In practice, enforcement remains technically complex, due in particular to pseudonymity, jurisdictional decentralisation and the absence of a custodian in decentralised structures. Seizures are more effective when the crypto-assets are held on centralised platforms subject to French jurisdiction or co-operative foreign platforms.

From a criminal law perspective, there is no dedicated offence relating specifically to crypto fraud. Prosecutors rely on existing legal qualifications such as fraud (escroquerie), breach of trust (abus de confiance) or unauthorised access to an automated data processing system. However, the application of these offences to blockchain-based conduct, such as smart contract manipulation, remains underdeveloped and jurisprudence is still evolving. In some cases, courts have declined to characterise opportunistic smart contract exploitation as criminal, where the conduct was technically permitted by the Code.

Despite the regulatory framework introduced by the Pacte Law (2019) for digital asset service providers (DASPs), including registration requirements with the AMF, enforcement challenges persist, particularly in the context of cross-border fraud and rapid dissipation of value.