Financial penalty imposed by the AFA Sanctions Committee without a prior injunction

Article 17 of the Law of 9 December 2016, known as the “Sapin II Law” (see Article 17), requires the companies concerned to implement eight measures designed to prevent and detect acts of corruption and influence peddling. They must therefore establish:

1. a code of conduct,
2. an internal whistleblowing system,
3. a risk map,
4. third-party due diligence procedures,
5. accounting controls,
6. a training programme,
7. a disciplinary regime,
8. and an internal control and assessment system.

The Sanctions Committee may impose the sanctions referred to in Article 17(V) of the Sapin II Law, including an injunction to comply with the statutory obligations within a maximum period of three years, or a fine.

In this case, the Director of the AFA had referred the matter to the Sanctions Committee and requested that a sanction be imposed, without any prior injunction, on a company which, in particular, had failed to put in place a risk map, a code of conduct, and procedures for assessing the situation of its customers and suppliers.

The Sanctions Committee imposed a financial penalty of EUR 350,000 on the company and EUR 60,000 on its President.

This decision provides clarification on several aspects of the supervisory authority’s expectations.

First, the company relied on the fact that it had brought itself into compliance after the inspection that led to the referral to the Sanctions Committee.

In this respect, the Committee noted that it had not been asked to issue an injunction—which would require it to determine whether compliance had been achieved by the date of its decision—but rather to impose a sanction. It therefore held that the subsequent remediation of the breaches did not preclude the imposition of a sanction.

As regards the personal liability of the company’s President, the Committee found that he played an essential role and had the authority required to initiate the necessary compliance measures. It therefore concluded that he “could not have been unaware of the significance of the anti-corruption framework with which he was required to comply”.

This decision underscores the importance, for companies subject to the Sapin II requirements and their senior executives, of not delaying implementation of the statutory anti-corruption framework.

For further information:

• AFA Sanctions Committee, Decision No. 25-01 of 9 July 2026
• Press release of the Sanctions Committee of the French Anti-Corruption Agency, Decision No. 25-01 of 9 July 2026, Company V. and Mr S.