Publication of the French Anti‑Corruption Agency’s 2018 Activity Report: What Lessons Can Be Drawn from the First Controls?

In 2018, the French Anti‑Corruption Agency (AFA) carried out 43 proactive inspections involving 28 economic actors (including 11 subsidiaries of foreign groups) and 15 public or non‑profit entities—a sharp increase compared with 2017, which had seen only six such inspections.
As of 31 December 2018, the Sanctions Committee had not yet been seized, and no criminal court had imposed an additional penalty requiring the implementation of a compliance programme (PPMC).
However, four AFA inspections were conducted pursuant to a Judicial Public Interest Agreement (CJIP).
In parallel with these inspections, the AFA published eight educational guidance documents to set out and clarify its expectations regarding the compliance obligations of economic actors:

Support for companies
Recommendations
Risk mapping
Code of conduct
Third‑party assessment
Internal whistleblowing mechanism
Conflict of interest
Facilitation payments

After conducting its first inspections, the AFA observed:

insufficient commitment by senior management, often limited to simply signing the Code of Conduct;
risk mapping that is inadequate or based on methodologies that do not ensure that all risks are identified, properly assessed, and prioritised;
risk‑management systems (code of conduct, training plans, third‑party assessment procedures, accounting controls, and internal control and audit mechanisms) that are rarely aligned with the risk mapping;
anti‑corruption frameworks within French subsidiaries of foreign groups that “often amount to a few measures copied and pasted from the parent company’s framework.”

These findings are fully in line with the AFA’s recommendations, which emphasise the importance of leadership involvement in compliance and the effectiveness of anti‑corruption prevention systems.

In 2018, the AFA launched a survey on corruption prevention in the local public sector by sending a questionnaire to local authorities, their public institutions, and semi‑public companies. The 3,277 responses revealed that very few public entities have adopted anti‑corruption systems or internal measures to prevent breaches of integrity:

7.3% have implemented an anti‑corruption plan or specific measures,
5.9% have adopted a code of conduct,
1.7% have created a risk map,
17% have assessed their third parties,
only 5.2% have deployed an internal audit system,
only 18.4% have established awareness‑raising and training initiatives on corruption prevention.

It should be recalled that Article 3 of the Sapin II Law, regarding public actors, does not provide for any sanction when these actors fail to implement an anti‑corruption system.

Several hundred people gathered outside the AFA’s offices to attend, on 25 June 2019, the first public hearing of the Sanctions Committee. Many were disappointed, however, as the AFA—despite its intention to ensure transparent debate—had made only around forty seats available.
This turnout reflects high expectations among compliance professionals seeking clarity on the AFA’s requirements and how it intends to monitor and sanction economic actors.

Already the subject of a judicial investigation due to suspected collusion in the professional electrical equipment distribution market, Sonepar was the first company referred to the AFA’s Sanctions Committee.
Five shortcomings were alleged against Sonepar:

an incomplete risk map that did not reflect the company’s actual risks;
a code of conduct that failed to meet the requirements of the December 2016 law;
the absence of a third‑party assessment procedure (customers, suppliers, intermediaries, etc.);
accounting control procedures that did not include provisions ensuring that books, records, and accounts could not be used to conceal acts of corruption or influence peddling;
the absence of an internal evaluation mechanism for anti‑corruption measures.

The AFA thus sought to sanction the lack of completeness and specificity of the anti‑corruption system. Sonepar, however, contested all allegations, asserting that it had implemented an adequate prevention and detection framework. The company especially criticised the AFA for overstepping its mission by actively searching for indications of wrongdoing in order to support the criminal investigation.
These debates highlight concerns that the AFA— which emphasised its cooperation with the National Financial Prosecutor’s Office (PNF) in its annual report—might use its audit powers excessively to provide information to the PNF and support the initiation of criminal proceedings. This will likely encourage companies to better understand their rights and obligations during an AFA inspection.

Following the hearing, the AFA Director, Charles Duchaine, requested that the Sanctions Committee order Sonepar to bring its compliance framework into line and to undergo a new inspection. In the event of ineffective or incomplete compliance, the Director requested that maximum sanctions be imposed. The eagerly awaited decision is expected at the end of July.

Our Tax Law team supports executives and companies in all areas of taxation, with reinforced expertise in innovation tax, employee share ownership, and the management of tax audits and disputes.

Subscribe to the newsletter to stay informed of upcoming developments: