All news

Full reference: Autorité de Contrôle Prudentiel et de Résolution (French Banking Regulator), Commission des sanctions (Commission of sanctions), 24th of February 2021, ING Bank France, procedure n°2020-02   Read the decision (in French)   In this decision, the ACPR Sanctions Commission condemns IGN Bank France to a reprimand and a financial penalty of 3 million euros because of the inadequacy of its measures to fight corruption, money laundering and financing of terrorism.   Extract from the decision summarizing ING France's breaches of its Compliance obligations to fight against corruption, money laundering and financing of terrorism: "At the time of the on-site check, ING France's risk classification was incomplete and ineffective (grievance 1) and its system for monitoring its business relations (complaint 2) and their operations (grievance 4) presented serious deficiencies, as well as its organization and procedures for fund transfers (grievance 3). The updating of customer knowledge was insufficient (grievance 5), as were the detection of PEPs and the implementation of measures due diligence for this category of clientele (grievance 6). For the implementation of its due diligence obligations, numerous shortcomings were noted, whether these were breaches of the obligation to carry out a reinforced examination (grievance 7) or breaches of the obligation to send Tracfin a DS, initial (grievance 8) or additional (grievance 9). Finally, the detection of persons subject to an asset freezing measure was not fully effective (grievance 10) " (our translation of the decision which is only available in French).

Full reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Devoir de vigilance des entreprises : vers un Droit de la responsabilité ex ante ? (Duty of vigilance for companies: towards an ex ante liability law?), conference-debate, The Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, Norway, 9th of February 2021.  The conference-debate is moderated by Catherine Banet, Associate Professor, Scandinavian Insitute of Maritime Law, Department of Energy and Resources Law, University of Oslo

Full reference: CJEU, 2nd of February 2021, DB v. Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob), case C‑481/19 Read the decision Read the opinion of advocate general   Summary of the decision by CJEU:  "Natural persons who are subject to an administrative investigation for insider dealing have the right to remain silent when their answers might establish their liability for an offence that is punishable by administrative sanctions of a criminal nature, or their criminal liability".    To go further, read: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Resolve the contradiction between "incentive" and "sanction" under the fire of Compliance Law, 2021 Frison-Roche, M.-A., Rights, primary and natural Compliance tools, 2021

► Full Reference: Agence française anticorruption – AFA (French Anti-corruption Agency), The French Anti-Corruption Agency Guidelines. Notice on the French Anti-corruption Agency Guidelines to help public and private sector entities to prevent and detect bribery, influence peddling, extorsion by public officials, illegal taking of interest, misappropriation of public funds and favoritism, January 12, 2021 - 📜Read the guidelines -

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., "Let's Use the Power of GAFAMs in the Service of General Interest!" ("Utilisons la puissance des GAFAMs au service de l'intérêt général!"), interview done by Olivia Dufour, Actu-juridiques Lextenso, 11st of January 2021 Read the interview (in French) To read the article translated in English by us, read the working paper on which this interview is based   Summary of the interview by Olivia Dufour: Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Professor of Regulation and Compliance Law, reported to the government in 2019 about Internet governance. For this expert, giving a disciplinary power to GAFAMs is the only effective solution. And the suppression of Donald Trump's account is not likely to call this analysis into question.   The three questions (translated in English here by ourselves) asked by Olivia Dufour are:  The deletion of Donald Trump's Twitter account arouses strong emotions on social networks, and not only among his supporters. What do you think about this ? However, this incident does raise concern. Are we not giving too much power to these private companies? This raises the question in France of the relevance of the Avia system … Should we therefore resolve by default to give our freedoms to private and opaque mastodons?   Read the answers to these three questions (in French)   To go further, especially about the logics that guide the Avia system, see: Frison-Roche, M.-A., "Hate on internet: we need to responsibilize digital operators" ("Haine sur internet: il faut responsabiliser les opérateurs numériques"), 2020 Frison-Roche, M.-A., The contribution of Compliance Law to Internet Governance, report to Government, 2019

Without warning neither the people who publish, nor the Internet users who react to their activity of publishing, the magazine Compliances carried out a manual survey of people active on Linkedin on the subject of COMPLIANCE this resulted in the following table, presented as the "Top 10 influencers" in this area: It emerges from this initiative taken by a third party, on a third professional network, that MAFR is by far the first personality in this ranking, Not just when it comes to people who follow the posts But still in terms of number of publications and above all of interactions generated by them.   - N.B .: the information on the creation of the Compliance Legal Design collection had not yet been made on December 11, 2020 on LinkedIn.  

Full reference: Zittrain, J. L., "Gaining Power, Losing Control", Clare Hall Tanner Lecture 2020, 2020 See the intervention Read the intervention's report   This intervention is divided in two parts:  Between Abdication and Suffocation: Three Eras of Governing Digital Platforms  With Great Power Comes Great Ignorance: What’s Wrong When Machine Learning Gets It Right 

Full reference: Loi n° 2020-1672 du 24 décembre 2020 relative au Parquet européen, à la justice environnementale et à la justice pénale spécialisée (Law of 24 December 2020 on the European Public Prosecutor's Office, environmental justice and specialized criminal justice) Read the law (in French)

► Full Reference: Supreme Court of Norway, 22 December 2020, People v Artic Oil. - 🏛️Read the judgment (in English, unofficial translation) -