CJIP

► Full reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, participation in the round table “L’avenir de la justice négociée : faut-il consolider et étendre la convention judiciaire d’intérêt public ?” (The future of negotiated justice: should the judicial public interest agreement be consolidated and extended?), in French National Assembly, colloquium 10 ans après la loi Sapin II. Quelles réformes pour relancer la lutte contre la corruption en France ? (10 years after the Sapin II Act. What reforms to revive the fight against corruption in France?), at the initiative of Raphaël Gauvain, at the invitation of Yaël Braun-Pivet, President of the National Assembly, and Vincent Caure, Chair of the Law Committee, Hôtel de Lassay, Paris, 20 October 2026. - 🧮 The round table takes place from 5 pm to 6.30 pm. It is chaired by Sandrine Mazetier, former Member of Parliament, member of the board of Transparency International France. 🪑🪑🪑 The other speakers are: 🕴️Jérôme Simon, First Deputy Prosecutor at the Parquet national financier (French National Financial Prosecutor’s Office), Chair of the Club des juristes commission on the judicial public interest agreement; 🕴️Astrid Mignon Colombet, partner at August Debouzy, rapporteur of that commission; 🕴️Céline Haye-Kiousis, President of the Association nationale des juristes de banque (French National Association of Bank Lawyers), General Counsel of the BPCE group; 🕴️Jean-Philippe Foegle, in charge of litigation and advocacy on illicit financial flows at the association Sherpa; 🕴️Alexis Werl, member of the Conseil national des barreaux (French National Bar Council), partner at Ashurst. This conference was held in French. - ► Presentation of my contribution to the round table: The round table, devoted to the French Judicial Public Interest Agreement (convention judiciaire d’intérêt public, CJIP), takes stock of it ten years after its creation by the Sapin II Act and outlines its prospects. The presentation below follows the remarks I made there, in answer to the questions put to me by the Chairwoman of the round table. 1. Do you consider that the Compliance culture has progressed since the 2016 Act was adopted, and what improvements could be made to strengthen it? The Compliance culture has made great progress, since it started from nothing, and the CJIP has become a « star » among Compliance tools, at once a success and the object of sharp criticism. Many relatively simple technical improvements can be envisaged, but its proper functioning is above all a matter of culture, notably in the relationship between companies and public prosecutors. Yet one does not reform mores by decree, and probably no more by statute. The first issue is the scope of the CJIP. In the United States, the DPA and the NPA, invented by practice, apply to any offence. The Sapin II Act covered corruption, influence peddling and the laundering of the proceeds of tax fraud; tax fraud itself was added in 2018, then environmental offences in 2020. But, through « related offences », the Épinal public prosecutor included in the Nestlé Waters CJIP, in 2024, offences under consumer law, and the Parquet national financier covered, in the Paprec CJIP, in 2025, unlawful cartels: competition law thus enters the CJIP. Such successive extensions, at the discretion of prosecutors and each with its own regime, are not a good way to proceed. If the tool is regarded as appropriate, and there is agreement that it is, it would be better to open it in a general and abstract way, within a unified regime. What matters in a CJIP is the compliance programme: the company undertakes not so much to settle the past as to take charge of the future. As a Compliance tool, the CJIP is aimed at the future, the company committing itself to systemic transformations. It could therefore serve, beyond corruption and the environment, to reduce harassment and discrimination, to protect persons, and to make whistleblowing effective. Why not extend it to all offences, since Compliance establishes a continuum between Criminal Law and other branches of Law, and there is no right to a CJIP? But increasing the power of the CJIP in this way, and therefore the power of prosecutors, requires that the parties concerned, and not only the company, be present. Yet neither the victims nor the interested persons are, and the rights of the defence are weak, because the legal nature of the CJIP is not firmly settled. Is this « agreement », which is legally not a contract, a negotiation between two powerful parties, the prosecutor and the company, or a kind of trial in which the prosecutor acts as a sort of arbitrator? In the latter case, the rights of the defence must benefit all the persons concerned, whose first right is to be there. This shift from a contractual atmosphere to a procedural one is a matter of culture: here again we meet the limits of the Legislator’s power. 2. The persons targeted by the facts: what improvements should be made to the French legal framework? Through self-reporting, the company provides the dates, events, places and persons: the complete incrimination. In law, this certainly amounts neither to an admission of guilt nor to proof, but when the persons whose conduct is thus described are then sent before the criminal court, everything is there, documents included. They are not only executives, but often lower-ranking employees, including in subsidiaries or partner structures of the company. Having neither taken part in the CJIP nor been able to exercise any rights of defence, they come before the court already « wrapped up ». The Legislator, having accepted the CJIP and wishing to consolidate its success, must therefore not stay in the middle of the bridge: admit it for more offences, or even for every offence, under unified rules; extend it to natural persons; and, moving away from the American contractual model, proceduralise the process by allowing the « persons targeted » by the facts reported by the company to take part in the CJIP procedure. In 2016, the Legislator advanced to the middle of the bridge; ten years later, it must cross it, or else the CJIP should never have been created. So let us cross it!

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "La part du gracieux dans le traitement juridictionnel de la compliance (The role of Discretionary Jurisdictio in the judicial treatment of Compliance cases)", in Mélanges Dominique d'Ambra, Liber Amicorum, Lefebvre-Dalloz, 2026, pp. 175-196. - 📝read this article (in French)  - 🚧read the bilingual Working Paper, base of this article - ► English summary of this article: Based on the definition of Judicial Office, the procedural principles that derive from it and the consequent powers that judges exercise, the objet of this study is to measure the degree of discretion that exists in the judicial treatment of compliance, without direct consideration for the dispute between litigants. This part is very ignored, when it should be given top priority. Indeed, because Systems are involved in compliance cases brought before civil or commercial judges, we are seeing a development of this discretionary element in judicial fonction. Discretionary matters differ from unilateral discretionary procedures, and this discretionary element relates to what the judge examines, possibly in the context of a dispute. The first part of this contribution therefore aims to describe the natural development of the discretionary power of the judge to deal with compliance cases brought before them. This role stems from the fact that, even when triggered by a dispute, what is submitted to the judge is a situation composed of a system, which cannot defend its interests before the civil or commercial judge in this Systemic Litigation arising from the very nature of Compliance Law and the Compliance Obligations it engenders on systemic entites. Moreover, it is the Future whose interests must be considered and protected, which the judge must do directly. This leads to the second part of the contribution, calling for a rethinking of the procedure and the role of the Compliance Judge, so that ex gratia matters can be dealt with. The judge must therefore verify that there are no conflicts of interest between the litigants, including hidden ones, and must learn about the systems involved. The inquisitorial principle must therefore be strengthened. But at the same time, since the primary aim is not to settle a dispute but to resolve a systemic problematic situation, the judge must facilitate the movements of the parties, and the adversarial principle must also be strengthened. Must be encouraged this activation of a powerful and discretionary approach, not as an exception but as a principle fully articulated with a contentious principle, with the dispute being only a means used by the necessary parties to enable systemic compliance situations to be resolved.

► Full Reference: R. Gauvain & B. Balian, “Opposition et convergence des systèmes juridiques américains et européens dans les règles et cultures de compliance” (“Opposition and Convergence of American and European Legal Systems in Compliance Rules and Cultures”), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), L’Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Dalloz, “Régulations & Compliance” Serie, 2025, pp. 401-417. - read the general presentation of the book, L’Obligation de Compliance, in which this article is published - ► This article is written in French. English summary of this contribution (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC): The authors approach Compliance Law through its tools, mainly compliance programmes through which companies comply with regulations and investigations conducted by companies at the request of public authorities to identify risks and new modes of defence consisting of entering into agreements with prosecuting authorities. The article highlights the American inspiration behind this movement, whereby the State, primarily for the sake of efficiency, transfers the responsibility for pursuing “Monumental Goals” to businesses. Based on this, the article first shows how American mechanisms have been imported into Europe, particularly France, with the Convention judiciaire d’intérêt public, taking on many of the characteristics of the DPA, even if some specific features remain, for example in the alert mechanisms. Secondly, the convergence between the two systems is shown, because through the compliance obligations that form the core of these compliance tools, it is always Western values that are expressed, values that are common to American Law and European Law and European countries. It has enabled this importation, and we can now see that these values are more strongly upheld by Europe, particularly through the Vigilance duty and the DSA. - 🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche’s courses -

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, The French Judicial Public Interest Agreement and the time saved: the Areva and Orano CJIP of 2 December 2024, Working Paper, January 2025. - 🎤 This Working Paper was developed as a basis for the Overhang👁 video  on 25 January 2025 : click HERE (in French) - 🎬🎬🎬In the collection of the Overhangs👁 It falls into the News category. ►Watch the complete collection of the Overhangs👁 : click HERE - ► Summary of this Working Paper: On 2 December 2024, Areva/Orano signed a Public Interest Judicial Agreement (CJIP) with the French National Financial Prosecutor's Office, validated by the order of 9 December 2024 of the President of the Paris Judicial Court. The case concerns the bribery of a foreign public official in Mongolia through the use of an intermediary. This perfectly illustrates the primary advantage of this Compliance Tool, which consists of closing a situation that could deprive a company of the means to act in the future. Even if neither the CJIP nor the validation order constitutes an admission of guilt or a conviction, the acts of bribery of a foreign public official can no longer give rise to prosecution. However, the future has been taken care of, because as soon as Tracfin passed the first information to the Public Prosecutor's Office, the company cooperated and set up a programme to actively fight corruption ("compliance programme"). The CJIP extends this by a compliance programme supervised by the French Anticorruption Agency. One month after the CJIP, the Mongolian government and the company, in the presence of the French government, announced on 17 January 2025 the signing of a contract to operate a uranium mine, the same industrial coopération that had given rise to these reprehensible acts. The CJIP made it possible to move forward in time.       - 🔓read the developments below⤵️

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC : les lignes de force de l'ouvrage (Compliance and rights of the defence. Internal investigation – French Judicial Public Interest Agreement – French guilty plea procedure : the main themes of the book), Newsletter MAFR Law, Compliance, Regulation, March 5, 2024 - 📧Read by freely subscribing other news of the Newsletter MAFR – Law, Compliance, Regulation - 🧱Compliance and rights of defense: a book to design them together to improve practices   The book Compliance et droits de la défense (Compliance and rights of the defence), co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC ) and Dalloz, takes as its starting point practices ranging from internal investigations to convention judiciaire d’intérêt public – CJIP (Judicial Public Interest Agreement) and comparution sur reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité – CRPC (French guilty plea procedure), to measure the way in which Compliance makes room, or not, for the rights of the defense.   📧read the general presentation of the book and, in a very detailed presentation of the book's main points, the presentation of each of the contributions, published on March 5, 2024 in the Newsletter MAFR – Law, Compliance, Regulation

► Full reference : E. Moyne, « Les impacts sur les droits de la défense des disparités de la justice pénale négociée dans l’Union européenne » (The Impact on the Rights of the Defence of Disparities in Negotiated Criminal Justice in the European Union), in M.-A. Frison-Roche and M. Boissavy (eds.), Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. “Régulations & Compliance“, 2024, pp. 287-297. - ► English Summary of this article (made by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC) : The author first examines, within the European area, the use French Law makes of these negotiated justice techniques. He notes their continual extension, in particular of the CJIP, which, reform after reform, now extends to tax fraud and environmental offences, and considers that it should be able to apply to everything and everyone, that is to say, on the one hand, to all offences, in particular in competition law and all financial offences, and, on the other hand, not only to legal persons but also to natural persons. The European area is for the time being rather occupied by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, whose action could be effective in leading to a criminal settlement or a CJIP, in particular in environmental matters. For now, the heterogeneity of the simplified procedures available to the various European Delegated Prosecutors creates a risk of forum shopping. Moreover, the absence of European harmonisation of criminal settlement or CJIP mechanisms makes their implementation difficult, since not only have many Member States not even introduced them but, where they have, the procedures are very diverse, in particular regarding the rights of the defence.

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche & M. Boissavy (eds.), Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC (Compliance and rights of the defence. Internal investigation – French Judicial Public Interest Agreement – French guilty plea procedure), Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, “Régulations & Compliance” Serie, 2024, 362 p. - ► General presentation of the book: We do not have an overall view of the relationship between Compliance and the rights of the defence in the continuum of internal investigations and DPA, or in the French legal system the convention judiciaire d’intérêt public (CJIP) and the comparution immédiate avec reconnaissance de culpabilité (CRPC), in particular because the texts, whether hard law or soft law, decisions and academic analyses segment them, making it difficult to build a pertinent appreciation of each one. This is made all the more difficult by the fact that we know little about how each of them is applied in practice, both within each of them and in relation to each other. As a result, it is difficult to express overall satisfaction, or total rejection, or to suggest some specific reforms and to precise on what points, to identify the appropriate source of these improvements, legislation, case law, professions, or spontaneous ways of doing. The first ambition of this book is therefore to restore an overall vision, because this is the vision of practice. If shortcomings are found to exist, then they can be more easily denounced. However, some of the situations described may be described as flawed, or even dramatic, by some, while others may consider that they should be approved as they stand. This applies, for example, to the question of whether or not the investigation report should be secret from the prosecuting authority, which may propose a DPA (or in the French legal system a CJIP), whether or not this CJIP should be extended to individuals, whether or not a lawyer should be present from the internal investigation stage onwards, whether or not the lawyer should support the interests of the company he/she is investigating and continue to do so before the regulator or the prosecutor, whether or not the investigation is delegated from the public authorities to the company, whether or not the lawyer-investigator and then the lawyer-defendant are both lawyers, whether or not the victims are represented in the the CIPC process, etc. Depending on what one thinks the relation between Compliance and due process should be in principle and in practice, one expresses a more or less approving or severe judgement on the state of the texts, the soft law nature of most of them making the exercise complicated, and then if there is a gap between them and what one thinks should be the right standard, one asserts that in practice things happen differently from what the texts say, or one considers that the texts should be changed. From point to point, a veritable kaleidoscope emerges in this book. Indeed, the result is a series of contributions that sometimes clash with one another, with a sort of contradictionary principle creeping into the very structure of this book, thus establishing the readesr as a sort of judges themselves , that character who is so absent. He/she will be able to do so, since the book lists texts, describes practices and gives an illustration of everything that can be thought of, in visions that are sometimes analytical and sometimes global, with proposals of reforms of texts, jurisprudence or conduct. The aim of the book is to enable readers to form their own opinions and to take part in what is undoubtedly being strongly debated today: the confrontation between Compliance and rights of the defence. - ► Summary of the book: The rights of the defence are one of the pillars of our Rule of Law. On the face of it, compliance techniques are not concerned with this under the pretext of efficiency. This would be particularly true in a trilogy that unfolds over time: internal investigation, convention judiciaire d’intérêt public – CJIP (French Judicial Public Interest Agreement) and comparution sur reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité – CRPC (French guilty plea procedure). However, because Compliance Law is also the expression of the Rule of Law, in that its ambition is to detect and prevent systemic risks in order to protect present and future human beings, we must go beyond this opposition and articulate Compliance and rights of the defence. The Monumental Goals of Compliance, which justify its power, for example to obtain information, and the fundamental rights of the defence, which for example impose the presumption of innocence, must be adjusted to each other; by interpreting texts, or even adopting new ones. The book analyses each of these three techniques, in particular the still largely unregulated internal investigation, and sheds light on them in relation to each other, in order to formulate proposals. - 🏗️General construction of the book: The book opens with an overview divided into three sections. The first Title compares the challenges of the internal investigation with the rights of the defence. The second Title compares the issues at stake in the convention judiciaire d’intérêt public – CJIP (French Judicial Public Interest Agreement) and the comparution sur reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité – CRPC (French guilty plea procedure) with these same rights of the defence. - TABLE OF CONTENTS   COMPLIANCE ET DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE : VISION D’ENSEMBLE (COMPLIANCE AND RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE : OVERVIEW) Section 1 ♦️ Connaître les pratiques pour redessiner les frontières et accroître les points de contact entre Compliance et droits de la défense dans l’enquête interne, la CJIP et la CRPC. Lignes de force de l’ouvrage Compliance et droits de la défense (Understanding practices to redraw the boundaries and increase the points of contact between Compliance and the rights of the defense in internal investigation, French Judicial Public Interest Agreement and French guilty plea procedure. Main Aspects of the Book Compliance and rights of the defence), by🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche   Section 2 ♦️  Compliance et droits de la défense : toujours pour le respect des droits humains (Compliance and rights of the defence: always for the respect of human rights), by🕴️Matthieu Boissavy Section 3 ♦️ Circuler dans le temps pour mettre en phase Compliance et droits de la défense (Moving through Time to align Compliance and rights of the defence), by🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche   TITRE I.  LES ENJEUX PROCÉDURAUX DE L’ENQUETE INTERNE CONFRONTÉE AUX DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE (TITLE I.  PROCEDURAL CHALLENGES OF THE INTERNAL INVESTIGATION IN RELATION TO THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE) CHAPITRE I : VISION GÉNÉRALE DES DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE DANS L’ENQUÊTE INTERNE  (CHAPTER I: OVERVIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE IN INTERNAL INVESTIGATION) Section 1 ♦️ Approche doctrinale de l’enquête interne et de l’enquête pénale privée (Doctrinal approach to internal investigation and private criminal investigation), by 🕴️Benjamin Fiorini Section 2 ♦️ Regard critique : La place des droits de la défense dans l’enquête interne selon le guide AFA/PNF (A critical look: The place of the rights of the defence in the internal investigation according to the AFA/PNF Guide), by 🕴️Margaux Durand-Poincloux, 🕴️David Apelbaum and 🕴️Paola Sardi-Antasan Section 3 ♦️ Les conditions de réussite de l’enquête interne dans les rapports entre le Parquet national financier et l’entreprise mise en cause – l’enquête interne au soutien de la défense de l’entreprise (The conditions for a successful internal investigation in the relationship between the French Financial Public Prosecutor’s Office and the accused company – the internal investigation in support of the company’s defence), by🕴️Jean-François Bohnert CHAPITRE II : LES DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE À CHAQUE ÉTAPE DE L’ENQUÊTE INTERNE (CHAPTER II: THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE AT EACH STAGE OF THE INTERNAL INVESTIGATION) Section 1 ♦️ La réception des alertes par l’avocat (Reception of alerts by the lawyer), by🕴️Maria Lancri Section 2 ♦️ Collecte et traitement des informations dans les enquêtes internes à l’ère numérique : processus et enjeux (Collecting and processing information for internal investigations in the digital age: processes and challenges), by🕴️Uriel Goldberg Section 3 ♦️ L’apport de la psychologie pour l’effectivité des droits de la défense dans l’enquête interne pour harcèlement au travail (The contribution of psychology to the effectiveness of the rights of the defence in internal investigation for harassment in the workplace), by🕴️Nathalie Leroy & 🕴️Danièle Zucker Section 4 ♦️ Le respect des droits de la défense lors des auditions des enquêtes internes : un gage d’efficacité (Respecting the rights of the defence during hearings in internal investigations: a guarantee of efficacy), by 🕴️Emmanuel Daoud & 🕴️Ghita Khalid Rouissi Section 5 ♦️ L’enquête interne au cœur des enjeux de conformité et de justice négociée : analyse de la position de l’AFA et du PNF (The internal investigation at the heart of conformity and negotiated justice issues: analysis of the position of the AFA and the PNF), by🕴️Éric Russo Section 6 ♦️ Le rapport d’enquête interne à l’épreuve des droits de la défense (The internal investigation report put to the test of defence rights), by🕴️Samuel Sauphanor CHAPITRE III : LA SPÉCIFICITÉ DES ENQUÊTES INTERNES DANS LES ENTREPRISES INTERNATIONALES ET LA PLACE DES DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE (CHAPTER III : SPECIFICITY OF INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS IN INTERNATIONAL COMPANIES AND THE PLACE OF THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE) Section 1 ♦️ La spécificité des enquêtes internes pratiquées par les groupes internationaux (Specificity of internal investigations carried out by international groups), by 🕴️Olivier Catherine Section 2 ♦️ Garantir la valeur probatoire d’un rapport dans le cadre d’une enquête interne opérée dans une entreprise internationale (Guaranteeing the evidential value of a report in an internal investigation carried out in an international company), by 🕴️Monique Figueiredo Section 3 ♦️ La responsabilité de l’entreprise dans la conception et la menée de l’enquête interne (The company’s responsibility in designing and conducting an internal investigation), by 🕴️Lydia Meziani Section 4 ♦️ Enquêtes internes, enquêtes pénales et droits de la défense : que nous disent les jurisprudences américaine et anglaise (l’affaire Connolly et l’affaire ENRC) ? (Internal investigations, criminal investigations and rights of the defence: what do the US and UK case law tell us (the Connolly case and the ENRC case)?), by 🕴️Victoire Chatelin CHAPITRE IV : LE RÔLE SINGULIER DE L’AVOCAT DANS L’ENQUÊTE INTERNE (CHAPTER IV: THE SPECIAL ROLE OF THE LAWYER IN THE INTERNAL INVESTIGATION) Section 1 ♦️ La méthodologie propre à l’avocat enquêteur (The investigating lawyer’s own methodology), by 🕴️William Feugère Section 2 ♦️ L’enquête interne façonnée par la déontologie de l’avocat (The internal investigation shaped by the lawyer’s deontology), by 🕴️Stéphane De Navacelle, 🕴️Julie Zorrila and 🕴️Laura Ragazzi Section 3 ♦️ Préserver le secret professionnel de l’avocat dans l’enquête interne et son résultat (Preserving the lawyer’s professional secrecy in the internal investigation and its outcome), by 🕴️Bénédicte Graulle & 🕴️Yanis Rahim Section 4 ♦️ L’avocat-enquêteur en droit du travail : un janséniste au milieu du Far West (The lawyer-investigator in employment law: a Jansenist in the Wild West), by 🕴️Richard Doudet Section 5 ♦️ La défense des personnes physiques dans les enquêtes internes (Defending individuals in internal investigations), by 🕴️Dorothée Hever TITRE II. LES ENJEUX PROCÉDURAUX DE LA CJIP ET DE LA CRPC CONFRONTÉES AUX DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE (TITLE II. PROCEDURAL CHALLENGES OF THE FRENCH JUDICIAL PUBLIC INTEREST AGREEMENT AND THE FRENCH GUILTY PLEA PROCEDURE  IN RELATION TO THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE) CHAPITRE I : VISION GÉNÉRALE DES DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE DANS LA CJIP ET LA CRPC (CHAPTER I: OVERVIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE IN THE FRENCH JUDICIAL PUBLIC INTEREST AGREEMENT AND THE FRENCH GUILTY PLEA PROCEDURE) Section 1 ♦️ Théorie et pratique de la négociation dans la justice pénale (Theory and practice of negotiation in criminal justice), by 🕴️Sarah-Marie Cabon Section 2 ♦️ La lutte anti-corruption : l’emprunt au modèle américain et à ses récentes évolutions (The fight against corruption: borrowing from the American model and its recent developments), by 🕴️Stephen L. Dreyfuss Section 3 ♦️ Justice pénale négociée : avantages présents, risques à venir (Negotiated criminal justice: curent benefits, future risks), by 🕴️Alexis Bavitot CHAPITRE II : FORMES ACTIVES DES DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE, LES DIALOGUES À L’OEUVRE OU À PARFAIRE DANS LA CJIP ET LA CRPC (CHAPTER II: ACTIVE FORMS OF THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE, DIALOGUES AT WORK OR TO BE PERFECTED IN THE FRENCH JUDICIAL PUBLIC INTEREST AGREEMENT AND THE FRENCH GUILTY PLEA PROCEDURE) Section 1 ♦️ Combinaison des CRPC et des CJIP : le cas particulier des affaires de fraude fiscale (Combination of the French guilty plea procedure and the French Judicial Public Interest Agreement: the special issue of tax fraud cases), by 🕴️Marion David Section 2 ♦️ Pour une justice pénale négociée plus équitable (For a fairer negotiated criminal justice), by🕴️Astrid Mignon Colombet Section 3 ♦️ Les impacts, sur les droits de la défense, des disparités de la justice pénale négociée dans l’Union européenne (The impact on the rights of the defence of the disparities in negotiated criminal justice in the European Union), by 🕴️Emmanuel Moyne Section 4 ♦️ L’évolution des rapports entre avocats et autorités de poursuites depuis l’introduction de la CJIP (Developments in relations between lawyers and prosecuting authorities since the introduction of the French Judicial Public Interest Agreement), by 🕴️Thomas Baudesson CHAPITRE III : LE RÔLE SINGULIER DE L’AVOCAT DANS LA CJIP ET LA CRPC  (CHAPTER III: THE SINGULAR ROLE OF THE LAWYER IN THE FRENCH JUDICIAL PUBLIC INTEREST AGREEMENT AND THE FRENCH GUILTY PLEA PROCEDURE) Section 1 ♦️ Quand se justifie et quand s’arrête la collaboration ? À propos de la CJIP (When is collaboration justified and when does it end? About the French Judicial Public Interest Agreement), by 🕴️Philippe Goossens Section 2 ♦️ Le dialogue de l’avocat et de son client, chef d’entreprise, face à la proposition d’une CRPC et d’une CJIP (The dialogue between the lawyer and his client, a company director, faced with the proposal of a French guilty plea procedure or a French Judicial Public Interest Agreement), by 🕴️François Saint-Pierre Section 3 ♦️ Le dilemme de l’avocat pénaliste face à la CRPC (The criminal lawyer’s dilemma when faced with the French guilty plea procedure), by 🕴️Jean Boudot Section 4 ♦️ Défendre les intérêts de la personne physique confrontée à la justice négociée : préserver l’effectivité des droits de la défense et le respect de la présomption d’innocence (Defending the interests of individuals faced with negotiated justice: preserving the effectiveness of the rights of the defence and respect for the presumption of innocence), by 🕴️Capucine Lanta de Bérard & 🕴️Pauline Dufourq Section 5 ♦️ Défendre les intérêts des victimes dans la justice pénale économique négociée (Defending victims’ interests in negotiated economic criminal justice), by 🕴️Jérôme Karsenti

► Full reference : Th. Baudesson, « L’évolution des rapports entre avocats et autorités de poursuites depuis l’introduction de la CJIP » (The Evolution of Relations between Lawyers and Prosecuting Authorities since the Introduction of the CJIP), in M.-A. Frison-Roche and M. Boissavy (eds.), Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. “Régulations & Compliance“, 2024, pp. 299-305. - ► English Summary of this article (made by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC) : The author considers that the CJIP, the most striking development in criminal procedure, brings the Bar and the prosecuting authorities into dialogue, moving from a logic of confrontation to one of cooperation. This is a new type of relationship. The prosecutor concerned is above all the PNF, which has expertise in this area, disseminates it through its soft law and provides more legal certainty to companies. He illustrates his remarks in particular with the so-called Airbus CJIP, in which there was a confrontation with English and American practices in “cooperation investigations” which require mutual trust. But he acknowledges the progress that remains to be made, both on the side of lawyers, who in France seem to remain as a matter of principle in opposition to magistrates and little attentive to what could be their role in the search for truth, and on the side of magistrates, who seem to perceive lawyers as a kind of “mercenaries” to be distrusted as a matter of principle. This is why, in their guide on internal investigations, the AFA and the PNF require that the lawyer who conducts the investigation and the one who ensures the criminal defence of the company cannot be the same, which the author explains by this distrust, presuming investigations of convenience, a suspicion of principle that the author regrets. Likewise, the refusal of magistrates to recognise the professional secrecy covering the investigation report seems to the author archaic in comparison with Anglo-Saxon conceptions, since the DoJ and the SFO readily accept the legal privilege attached to this report. As a result, France would not be at the same level of Rule of Law as the United States and the United Kingdom. The author concludes that progress remains to be made for France to complete its evolution and become fully attractive, so that companies confronted with reprehensible practices are effectively led to undertake a self-reporting approach.

► Full reference : M. Boissavy, « Compliance et droits de la défense : toujours pour le respect des droits humains » (Compliance and the Rights of the Defence: Always for the Respect of Human Rights), in M.-A. Frison-Roche and M. Boissavy (eds.), Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. “Régulations & Compliance“, 2024, pp. 27-32. - ► English Summary of this article (made by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC) : The author first describes Compliance, through which the company sees its freedom constrained so that its power serves the goals set by the public authorities and prevents risks from materialising. These “Monumental Goals” are set by the public authorities either to prevent systemic risks from materialising or to achieve objectives beneficial to society, human beings and the environment. To this end, companies must investigate themselves and self-report, this self-reporting reducing the criminal penalties incurred for the offences they have themselves brought to light. These monitoring tools facilitate the judicial public interest agreement (CJIP) mechanism. They work “for the best” if these Monumental Goals are thereby achieved. They work “for the worst” if this comes at the price of sacrificing the rights of the defence. Secondly, the author recalls the importance of the rights of the defence, their roots in history, or even in natural law, their position at the very top of the hierarchy of norms and, in the author’s view, the integration of the adversarial principle within them, as well as the fact that they apply even outside trials, as case law has imposed in matters of dismissal. This is why, thirdly, the contribution asserts that the rights of the defence must always apply in all Compliance mechanisms, even where there is neither a trial nor a sanction in the strict sense of the term, in particular in internal investigations, these procedures without trial which are above all evidential mechanisms for what follows, most often before a court. In addition, the author questions the effectiveness of the consent expressed in the context of the CJIP and the CRPC. - ► Full Reference: M. Boissavy, “Compliance et droits de la défense : toujours pour le respect des droits humains” (“Compliance and the rights of the defence: always in favour of respect for human rights”), in M.-A. Frison-Roche & M. Boissavy (eds.), Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. “Régulations & Compliance“, 2024, pp. 27-32. - read a general presentation of the book, Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC, in which this article is published - ► English Summary of the article (done by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC): The author begins by describing Compliance, whereby the company’s freedom is curtailed so that its power serves the goals set by the public authorities and prevents risks from occurring. These “Monumental Goals” are set by the public authorities either to prevent the occurrence of systemic risks, or to achieve beneficial objectives for society, human beings and the environment. In order to do this, companies will have to investigate themselves and denounce themselves, with this self-denunciation reducing the criminal penalties incurred as a result of infringements they have uncovered themselves. These surveillance tools facilitate the convention judiciaire d’intérêt public – CJIP (French Judicial Public Interest Agreement) mechanism. They work “for the better” if the aforementioned Monumental Goals are achieved. They work “for the worse”, if this is at the cost of sacrificing the rights of the defence. The second part of the paper recalls the importance of the rights of the defence, their roots in history, and even in Natural Law, their position at the very top of the hierarchy of norms and, according to the author, the integration of the adversarial principle within them, as well as the fact that they apply even outside trials, as has been imposed by case-law in matters of dismissal. This is why, thirdly, the paper argues that the rights of the defence must always be applied in all compliance mechanisms, even if this does not involve a trial or a sanction in the strict sense of the term, particularly in internal investigations, procedures without a trial which are above all evidentiary mechanisms for the next stage, which is usually judicial. In addition, the author questions the effectiveness of the consents expressed during the CJIP and comparution sur comparution sur reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité – CRPC (French French guilty plea procedure). - 🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche’s courses -

► Full reference : C. Lanta de Bérard & P. Dufourq, « Défendre les intérêts de la personne physique confrontée à la justice négociée : préserver l’effectivité des droits de la défense et le respect de la présomption d’innocence » (Defending the Interests of the Natural Person Facing Negotiated Justice: Preserving the Effectiveness of the Rights of the Defence and Respect for the Presumption of Innocence), in M.-A. Frison-Roche and M. Boissavy (eds.), Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. “Régulations & Compliance“, 2024, pp. 329-337. - ► English Summary of this article (made by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC) : For the authors of the contribution, natural persons, in particular the corporate officers of legal persons, are the “poor relations” of negotiated justice, even though it presents many risks for them. This would be due first to the fact that the CRPC is inadequate for them, in particular because it is not the equivalent of the CJIP and involves an admission of liability, whereas the CJIP precisely excludes it, while the CJIP, like the internal investigation that often precedes it, targets natural persons, facts directly attributable to corporate officers who have no room for manoeuvre left when the time of their own trial comes. The so-called Bolloré case clearly showed this. The internal investigation is thus at once an object of cooperation and a basis for the prosecution of the natural person, and the company may negotiate against its employees, natural persons, without them even knowing, the presumption of innocence hardly operating in what is nevertheless a delegated criminal investigation. Solutions are listed by the authors to remedy this unfavourable situation: a legislative reform so that the negotiated settlement covers globally both the legal person and the natural persons involved; a firmer framework for internal investigations, for better respect of the principles of criminal procedure for the benefit of the persons interviewed and involved; more effective respect for the presumption of innocence when entering into negotiations for a CJIP; and, borrowing from British Law, a prohibition on using before a judge any information resulting from a CJIP.

► Full reference : M.-A. Frison-Roche, « Circuler dans le temps pour mettre en phase Compliance et droits de la défense » (Moving through Time to Bring Compliance and the Rights of the Defence into Phase), in M.-A. Frison-Roche and M. Boissavy (eds.), Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. “Régulations & Compliance“, 2024, pp. 33-58. - ► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche "Circuler dans le temps pour mettre en phase Compliance et droits de la défense ("Moving through Time to align Compliance with the rights of the defence")", in M.-A. Frison-Roche et M. Boissavy (dir.), Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. "Régulations & Compliance",  2024, pp. 33-58. - 📝read the article (in French) - 🚧read the bilingual Working Paper on which this article is based, with additional developments, technical references and hyperlinks - 📕read the general presentation of the book, Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC, in which this article is published (in French) - 📝read also the presentation of the other article published par Marie-Anne Frison-Roche in this book : "Connaitre les pratiques pour redessiner les frontières et accroître les points de contact entre Compliance et droits de la défense dans l’enquête interne, la CJIP et la CRPC" (Understanding practices to redraw the boundaries and increase the points of contact between Compliance and the rights of the defense in Internal Investigation, Judicial Public Interest Agreement and French guilty plea procedure) - ► English Summary of this article: the subject of Compliance & rights of the defence is difficult to pin down because it often gives rise to totally opposing presentations, which express the initial confrontation between Compliance and rights of the defence, which seems irreducible. This initial confrontation must be acknowledged, and this is even more necessary to prevent it from becoming definitive(I) But in a society governed by the Rule of Law, the rights of the defence are central, and the hierarchy of norms dictates that they remain the privilege of all those who risk being punished in the future. Admittedly, if we look at the course of events in a linear way, the Compliance mechanisms come in Ex Ante, whereas the rights of the defence would only be activated when the repressive procedures would later come to bear on the moral or natural person. The question would therefore not even arise, or not in a central way. But this reasoning creates a false compatibility between Compliance and the rights of the defence (II. Indeed, it is the perspective of punishment in the future that forms the basis for the attribution of rights of the defence in the present. This consideration of the future not only allows but obliges the Law to "move in time", to always think in advance about what might happen tomorrow: this is how we must think about the Compliance methods of Internal Investigation, the DPA (or in the French legal system the Convention judiciaire d'intérêt public and the French Guilty plea procedure (CRPC) (III). As soon as these Compliance Tools are being used in practice, at the time they are being used, we must already think about how their results will be used, results which they have often been used for, because the Internal Investigation is a formidable piece of Evidence for obtaining a conviction and/or a DPA, etc. : therefore, the rights of the defence must shift over time, from the future to the present of the Information collect. Two ambiguities that affect Compliance Law itself, ambiguities which the rights of the defence help to clarify, now appear more clearly.  The first concerns the place occupied by the consent of the person who could have been protected by the rights of defence but //who exercises his/her will to renounce them (IV). Consent, in relation to the will of which it is the expression, is also linked with the future and allows Compliance once again to take precedence over the prerogatives of the individual who chooses not to benefit from it. The omnipresence of 'consent' in Compliance is enlightening here… The second ambiguity concerns the place of secrecy (V). Secrecy seems to be the prerogative of the rights of the defence. But it can also be an effective Compliance Tool when Confidentiality enables the company to detect and prevent breaches. It may even constitute the very Monumental Goal of Compliance Law. This happens when the Goal of Compliance Law, in which legal normativity is placed, becomes the protection of the individual, as is the case for personal information. That guides the European Judge, in line with the humanism that underpins European Compliance Law, in finding the right balance, this protection and effectiveness, depending on whether the information must be given or must be not.

► Full reference : P. Goossens, « Quand se justifie et quand s’arrête la collaboration ? À propos de la CJIP » (When Is Cooperation Justified and When Does It End? On the CJIP), in M.-A. Frison-Roche and M. Boissavy (eds.), Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. “Régulations & Compliance“, 2024, pp. 309-315. - ► English Summary of this article (made by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC) : The author explains that, in the classical legal system, the lawyer engages in a “defence by opposition”. The so-called “Sapin 2” law adds to it a “defence by cooperation”, which fits more or less well with the former. The article lists both the advantages and the drawbacks of the logic of cooperation that the lawyer must take on. With pragmatism, the lawyer must handle both, in particular so that the rights of the defence of the company and its interests find their place in the CJIP mechanism.

► Full reference : J. Karsenti, « Défendre les intérêts des victimes dans la justice pénale économique négociée » (Defending the Interests of Victims in Negotiated Economic Criminal Justice), in M.-A. Frison-Roche and M. Boissavy (eds.), Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, coll. “Régulations & Compliance“, 2024, pp. 339-349. - ► English Summary of this article (made by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance – JoRC) : The article opens with a general presentation of the birth of negotiated criminal justice, which the author attributes above all to a desire for efficiency, whereas justice should not be negotiated and guilt is proven, not settled. But the flow of litigation and its management decided otherwise, with the revolution of the CRPC, then of the CJIP. The latter also brings France into line with international standards that weigh on and benefit companies, legal persons, the whole placing these alternative modes of prosecution at the heart of criminal procedure. The increasingly economic nature of these procedures, specific to large economic players, means that they stand alone before prosecutors whose sole authority in fact prevails, the article asserting that neither the judge nor the victims are truly present. The author’s severe judgment becomes more radical regarding the CJIP. The author criticises this lack of place both for natural persons, in particular the corporate officers of legal persons, and for the victims of their actions, the legal persons likely to defend the interests of victims having little access and few rights. The result is a random compensation of victims. This negotiated justice would therefore run counter to ordinary criminal procedure, which, for its part, is increasingly open to victims.

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche & M. Boissavy (eds.), Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne – CJIP – CRPC (Compliance and rights of the defence. Internal investigation – French Judicial Public Interest Agreement – French guilty plea procedure), Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, “Régulations & Compliance” Serie, 2024, 362 p. - ► General presentation of the book:  We do not have an overall view of the relationship between Compliance and the rights of the defence in the continuum of internal investigations and DPA, or in the French legal system the convention judiciaire d’intérêt public (CJIP) and the comparution immédiate avec reconnaissance de culpabilité (CRPC), in particular because the texts, whether hard law or soft law, decisions and academic analyses segment them, making it difficult to build a pertinent appreciation of each one. This is made all the more difficult by the fact that we know little about how each of them is applied in practice, both within each of them and in relation to each other.  As a result, it is difficult to express overall satisfaction, or total rejection, or to suggest some specific reforms and to precise on what points, to identify the appropriate source of these improvements, legislation, case law, professions, or spontaneous ways of doing. The first ambition of this book is therefore to restore an overall vision, because this is the vision of practice. If shortcomings are found to exist, then they can be more easily denounced. However, some of the situations described may be described as flawed, or even dramatic, by some, while others may consider that they should be approved as they stand. This applies, for example, to the question of whether or not the investigation report should be secret from the prosecuting authority, which may propose a DPA (or in the French legal system a CJIP), whether or not this CJIP should be extended to individuals, whether or not a lawyer should be present from the internal investigation stage onwards, whether or not the lawyer should support the interests of the company he/she is investigating and continue to do so before the regulator or the prosecutor, whether or not the investigation is delegated from the public authorities to the company, whether or not the lawyer-investigator and then the lawyer-defendant are both lawyers, whether or not the victims are represented in the the CIPC process, etc. Depending on what one thinks the relation between Compliance and due process should be in principle and in practice, one expresses a more or less approving or severe judgement on the state of the texts, the soft law nature of most of them making the exercise complicated, and then if there is a gap between them and what one thinks should be the right standard, one asserts that in practice things happen differently from what the texts say, or one considers that the texts should be changed. From point to point, a veritable kaleidoscope emerges in this book. Indeed, the result is a series of contributions that sometimes clash with one another, with a sort of contradictionary principle creeping into the very structure of this book, thus establishing the readesr as a sort of judges themselves , that character who is so absent. He/she will be able to do so, since the book lists texts, describes practices and gives an illustration of everything that can be thought of, in visions that are sometimes analytical and sometimes global, with proposals of reforms of texts, jurisprudence or conduct. The aim of the book is to enable readers to form their own opinions and to take part in what is undoubtedly being strongly debated today: the confrontation between Compliance and rights of the defence. - 🧮this book follows a conference organised by the Conseil national des barreaux – CNB (French National Council of Lawyers), which took place on 20 and 21 April 2023: Avocats et droits de la défense dans les enquêtes internes et la justice négociée. - This volume is the continuation of the books dedicated to Compliance in this collection. ► Read the presentations of the other books in the series: the following books: 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕L’Obligation de Compliance, 2025 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Compliance et Contrat, forthcoming 🕴️L. Laref (ed.), 📕Compliance et vigilance bancaire, forthcoming 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 📕Le système juridique de l’adressage de l’Internet. Une structure multi-acteurs, gage de durabilité (The Legal System of Internet Addressing. A Multi-Stakeholder Structure, the Pledge of its Sustainability), forthcoming 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Le système probatoire de la Compliance, forthcoming   the previous books: 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, 2023 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Les Buts Monumentaux de la Compliance, 2022 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Les outils de la Compliance, 2021 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Pour une Europe de la Compliance, 2019 🕴️N. Borga, J.-Cl. Marin and J.-Ch. Roda (eds.), 📕Compliance : l’entreprise, le régulateur et le juge, 2018 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Régulation, Supervision, Compliance, 2017 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📕Internet, espace d’interrégulation, 2016 📚Read the presentations of the other titles of the collection. - ► Summary of the book: The rights of the defence are one of the pillars of our Rule of Law. On the face of it, compliance techniques are not concerned with this under the pretext of efficiency. This would be particularly true in a trilogy that unfolds over time: internal investigation, convention judiciaire d’intérêt public – CJIP (French Judicial Public Interest Agreement) and comparution sur reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité – CRPC (French guilty plea procedure). However, because Compliance Law is also the expression of the Rule of Law, in that its ambition is to detect and prevent systemic risks in order to protect present and future human beings, we must go beyond this opposition and articulate Compliance and rights of the defence. The Monumental Goals of Compliance, which justify its power, for example to obtain information, and the fundamental rights of the defence, which for example impose the presumption of innocence, must be adjusted to each other; by interpreting texts, or even adopting new ones. The book analyses each of these three techniques, in particular the still largely unregulated internal investigation, and sheds light on them in relation to each other, in order to formulate proposals. - 🏗️General construction of the book: The book opens with an overview divided into three sections. The first Title compares the challenges of the internal investigation with the rights of the defence. The second Title compares the issues at stake in the convention judiciaire d’intérêt public – CJIP (French Judicial Public Interest Agreement) and the comparution sur reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité – CRPC (French guilty plea procedure) with these same rights of the defence. -   TABLE OF CONTENTS   COMPLIANCE ET DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE : VISION D’ENSEMBLE (COMPLIANCE AND RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE : OVERVIEW) Section 1 ♦️ Connaître les pratiques pour redessiner les frontières et accroître les points de contact entre Compliance et droits de la défense dans l’enquête interne, la CJIP et la CRPC. Lignes de force de l’ouvrage Compliance et droits de la défense (Understanding practices to redraw the boundaries and increase the points of contact between Compliance and the rights of the defense in internal investigation, French Judicial Public Interest Agreement and French guilty plea procedure. Main Aspects of the Book Compliance and rights of the defence), by🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche   Section 2 ♦️  Compliance et droits de la défense : toujours pour le respect des droits humains (Compliance and rights of the defence: always for the respect of human rights), by🕴️Matthieu Boissavy Section 3 ♦️ Circuler dans le temps pour mettre en phase Compliance et droits de la défense (Moving through Time to align Compliance and rights of the defence), by🕴️Marie-Anne Frison-Roche   TITRE I.  LES ENJEUX PROCÉDURAUX DE L’ENQUETE INTERNE CONFRONTÉE AUX DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE (TITLE I.  PROCEDURAL CHALLENGES OF THE INTERNAL INVESTIGATION IN RELATION TO THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE)   CHAPITRE I : VISION GÉNÉRALE DES DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE DANS L’ENQUÊTE INTERNE  (CHAPTER I: OVERVIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE IN INTERNAL INVESTIGATION) Section 1 ♦️ Approche doctrinale de l’enquête interne et de l’enquête pénale privée (Doctrinal approach to internal investigation and private criminal investigation), by 🕴️Benjamin Fiorini Section 2 ♦️ Regard critique : La place des droits de la défense dans l’enquête interne selon le guide AFA/PNF (A critical look: The place of the rights of the defence in the internal investigation according to the AFA/PNF Guide), by 🕴️Margaux Durand-Poincloux, 🕴️David Apelbaum and 🕴️Paola Sardi-Antasan Section 3 ♦️ Les conditions de réussite de l’enquête interne dans les rapports entre le Parquet national financier et l’entreprise mise en cause – l’enquête interne au soutien de la défense de l’entreprise (The conditions for a successful internal investigation in the relationship between the French Financial Public Prosecutor’s Office and the accused company – the internal investigation in support of the company’s defence), by🕴️Jean-François Bohnert   CHAPITRE II : LES DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE À CHAQUE ÉTAPE DE L’ENQUÊTE INTERNE (CHAPTER II: THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE AT EACH STAGE OF THE INTERNAL INVESTIGATION)   Section 1 ♦️ La réception des alertes par l’avocat (Reception of alerts by the lawyer), by🕴️Maria Lancri Section 2 ♦️ Collecte et traitement des informations dans les enquêtes internes à l’ère numérique : processus et enjeux (Collecting and processing information for internal investigations in the digital age: processes and challenges), by🕴️Uriel Goldberg Section 3 ♦️ L’apport de la psychologie pour l’effectivité des droits de la défense dans l’enquête interne pour harcèlement au travail (The contribution of psychology to the effectiveness of the rights of the defence in internal investigation for harassment in the workplace), by🕴️Nathalie Leroy & 🕴️Danièle Zucker Section 4 ♦️ Le respect des droits de la défense lors des auditions des enquêtes internes : un gage d’efficacité (Respecting the rights of the defence during hearings in internal investigations: a guarantee of efficacy), by 🕴️Emmanuel Daoud & 🕴️Ghita Khalid Rouissi Section 5 ♦️ L’enquête interne au cœur des enjeux de conformité et de justice négociée : analyse de la position de l’AFA et du PNF (The internal investigation at the heart of conformity and negotiated justice issues: analysis of the position of the AFA and the PNF), by🕴️Éric Russo Section 6 ♦️ Le rapport d’enquête interne à l’épreuve des droits de la défense (The internal investigation report put to the test of defence rights), by🕴️Samuel Sauphanor   CHAPITRE III : LA SPÉCIFICITÉ DES ENQUÊTES INTERNES DANS LES ENTREPRISES INTERNATIONALES ET LA PLACE DES DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE (CHAPTER III : SPECIFICITY OF INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS IN INTERNATIONAL COMPANIES AND THE PLACE OF THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE) Section 1 ♦️ La spécificité des enquêtes internes pratiquées par les groupes internationaux (Specificity of internal investigations carried out by international groups), by 🕴️Olivier Catherine Section 2 ♦️ Garantir la valeur probatoire d’un rapport dans le cadre d’une enquête interne opérée dans une entreprise internationale (Guaranteeing the evidential value of a report in an internal investigation carried out in an international company), by 🕴️Monique Figueiredo Section 3 ♦️ La responsabilité de l’entreprise dans la conception et la menée de l’enquête interne (The company’s responsibility in designing and conducting an internal investigation), by 🕴️Lydia Meziani Section 4 ♦️ Enquêtes internes, enquêtes pénales et droits de la défense : que nous disent les jurisprudences américaine et anglaise (l’affaire Connolly et l’affaire ENRC) ? (Internal investigations, criminal investigations and rights of the defence: what do the US and UK case law tell us (the Connolly case and the ENRC case)?), by 🕴️Victoire Chatelin   CHAPITRE IV : LE RÔLE SINGULIER DE L’AVOCAT DANS L’ENQUÊTE INTERNE (CHAPTER IV: THE SPECIAL ROLE OF THE LAWYER IN THE INTERNAL INVESTIGATION) Section 1 ♦️ La méthodologie propre à l’avocat enquêteur (The investigating lawyer’s own methodology), by 🕴️William Feugère Section 2 ♦️ L’enquête interne façonnée par la déontologie de l’avocat (The internal investigation shaped by the lawyer’s deontology), by 🕴️Stéphane De Navacelle, 🕴️Julie Zorrila and 🕴️Laura Ragazzi Section 3 ♦️ Préserver le secret professionnel de l’avocat dans l’enquête interne et son résultat (Preserving the lawyer’s professional secrecy in the internal investigation and its outcome), by 🕴️Bénédicte Graulle & 🕴️Yanis Rahim Section 4 ♦️ L’avocat-enquêteur en droit du travail : un janséniste au milieu du Far West (The lawyer-investigator in employment law: a Jansenist in the Wild West), by 🕴️Richard Doudet Section 5 ♦️ La défense des personnes physiques dans les enquêtes internes (Defending individuals in internal investigations), by 🕴️Dorothée Hever     TITRE II. LES ENJEUX PROCÉDURAUX DE LA CJIP ET DE LA CRPC CONFRONTÉES AUX DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE (TITLE II. PROCEDURAL CHALLENGES OF THE FRENCH JUDICIAL PUBLIC INTEREST AGREEMENT AND THE FRENCH GUILTY PLEA PROCEDURE  IN RELATION TO THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE)   CHAPITRE I : VISION GÉNÉRALE DES DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE DANS LA CJIP ET LA CRPC (CHAPTER I: OVERVIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE IN THE FRENCH JUDICIAL PUBLIC INTEREST AGREEMENT AND THE FRENCH GUILTY PLEA PROCEDURE) Section 1 ♦️ Théorie et pratique de la négociation dans la justice pénale (Theory and practice of negotiation in criminal justice), by 🕴️Sarah-Marie Cabon Section 2 ♦️ La lutte anti-corruption : l’emprunt au modèle américain et à ses récentes évolutions (The fight against corruption: borrowing from the American model and its recent developments), by 🕴️Stephen L. Dreyfuss Section 3 ♦️ Justice pénale négociée : avantages présents, risques à venir (Negotiated criminal justice: curent benefits, future risks), by 🕴️Alexis Bavitot   CHAPITRE II : FORMES ACTIVES DES DROITS DE LA DÉFENSE, LES DIALOGUES À L’OEUVRE OU À PARFAIRE DANS LA CJIP ET LA CRPC (CHAPTER II: ACTIVE FORMS OF THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE, DIALOGUES AT WORK OR TO BE PERFECTED IN THE FRENCH JUDICIAL PUBLIC INTEREST AGREEMENT AND THE FRENCH GUILTY PLEA PROCEDURE) Section 1 ♦️ Combinaison des CRPC et des CJIP : le cas particulier des affaires de fraude fiscale (Combination of the French guilty plea procedure and the French Judicial Public Interest Agreement: the special issue of tax fraud cases), by 🕴️Marion David Section 2 ♦️ Pour une justice pénale négociée plus équitable (For a fairer negotiated criminal justice), by🕴️Astrid Mignon Colombet Section 3 ♦️ Les impacts, sur les droits de la défense, des disparités de la justice pénale négociée dans l’Union européenne (The impact on the rights of the defence of the disparities in negotiated criminal justice in the European Union), by 🕴️Emmanuel Moyne Section 4 ♦️ L’évolution des rapports entre avocats et autorités de poursuites depuis l’introduction de la CJIP (Developments in relations between lawyers and prosecuting authorities since the introduction of the French Judicial Public Interest Agreement), by 🕴️Thomas Baudesson   CHAPITRE III : LE RÔLE SINGULIER DE L’AVOCAT DANS LA CJIP ET LA CRPC  (CHAPTER III: THE SINGULAR ROLE OF THE LAWYER IN THE FRENCH JUDICIAL PUBLIC INTEREST AGREEMENT AND THE FRENCH GUILTY PLEA PROCEDURE) Section 1 ♦️ Quand se justifie et quand s’arrête la collaboration ? À propos de la CJIP (When is collaboration justified and when does it end? About the French Judicial Public Interest Agreement), by 🕴️Philippe Goossens Section 2 ♦️ Le dialogue de l’avocat et de son client, chef d’entreprise, face à la proposition d’une CRPC et d’une CJIP (The dialogue between the lawyer and his client, a company director, faced with the proposal of a French guilty plea procedure or a French Judicial Public Interest Agreement), by 🕴️François Saint-Pierre Section 3 ♦️ Le dilemme de l’avocat pénaliste face à la CRPC (The criminal lawyer’s dilemma when faced with the French guilty plea procedure), by 🕴️Jean Boudot Section 4 ♦️ Défendre les intérêts de la personne physique confrontée à la justice négociée : préserver l’effectivité des droits de la défense et le respect de la présomption d’innocence (Defending the interests of individuals faced with negotiated justice: preserving the effectiveness of the rights of the defence and respect for the presumption of innocence), by 🕴️Capucine Lanta de Bérard & 🕴️Pauline Dufourq Section 5 ♦️ Défendre les intérêts des victimes dans la justice pénale économique négociée (Defending victims’ interests in negotiated economic criminal justice), by 🕴️Jérôme Karsenti

► Full Reference: J.-M. Coulon, "Compliance Law in the construction industry and the contradictions, impossibilities and deadlocks that companies face", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie, 2024, pp. 147-154  - 📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in which this article is published - ► The summary below describes an article following the colloquium The Entreprise instituted Judge and Prosecutor of itself by Compliance Law) , co-organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the Faculté de Droit Lyon 3. This manifestation was designed under the scientific direction of Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and Jean-Christophe Roda and took place in Lyon on June 23, 2021. During this colloquium, the intervention was shared with Christophe Lapp, who is also a contributor in the book (see the summary of the Christophe Lapp's Article). In the book, the article will be published in Title I, devoted to:  L'entreprise instituée Juge et Procureur d'elle-même par le Droit de la Compliance (The Entreprise instituted Judge and Prosecutor of itself by Compliance Law). - ► Summary of the article (done by the author): The construction industry is not a regulated sector. Its market is made up of a superposition of territorial strata which are all relevant markets, to which corresponds a specific microcosm of companies. Finally, the temporary association between companies for the purposes of carrying out a project or a work is consubstantial with this sector. The penetration of Compliance in this sector is inevitably very heterogeneous and results from both exogenous factors (other partners within temporary associations, influence of economic operators from other sectors of activity, capital providers and lender, incitations from professional organizations ) the endogenous (submission to a Financial Regulatory Authority because the company is listed ; application of the laws on duty of vigilance, and French Law called "Sapin 2"). For example, subject to all these factors combined, the Bouygues group is particularly sensitive to compliance. Not only internal "legislator", the Bouygues group finds itself in turn "prosecutor and judge" both of itself and of others. Indeed, leading an investigation, filing a complaint, triggering an ethics alert, making use of the leniency program, this group is, however, no other than a sort of assistant for the Prosecutor. In addition, scrutinizing its stakeholders, sanctioning its employees, resorting to a Convention Judiciaire d'intérêt public (judicial agreement in the public interest) or negotiating its sanction within the framework of a procedure instituted by a multilateral bank, it fulfills the function of a judge. Legislator, prosecutor, judge, the Bouygues group is faced with a paradox, in a way encouraged to exercise “sovereignty”, yet it does not benefit from the attributes attached to it or from the unwavering support of the competent Public Authorities. - 🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses -

► Full Reference: A. Bavitot, “Shaping the Company through Negotiated Criminal Justice Agreements. French Perspective”, in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, “Compliance & Regulation” Serie, 2024, pp. 203-215 - read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in which this article is published - ► Summary of the article (done by the author): Negotiated justice is “the situation in which the criminal conflict is the object of a trade in the etymological sense of the term negotio, i.e. a debate between the parties to reach an agreement”. Thus, the French legislator has succumbed to globalized mimicry by creating the Convention judiciaire d’intérêt public (Public Interest Judicial Agreement), first in matters of probity and then in environmental matters. What is the nature of this deal of justice? Validated by a judge’s order, it does not entail any declaration of guilt, has neither the nature nor the effects of a judgment of conviction and is not registered in the judicial record. Possible at the investigation stage as well as at the pre-trial stage, the Public Interest Judicial Agreement is original in that it makes it possible to avoid either the prosecutor’s proceedings or the judge’s wrath. A detailed study of the agreements signed shows that in order to negotiate in the best possible way, the company can and must shape itself. The company will shape the facts of its agreement, shape its charge and, finally, shape its sentence. The article offers a concrete analysis of these three dimensions of corporate shaping to better approach understanding the legal nature of negotiated criminal justice agreements. - 🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche’s courses -

follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law - ► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, "Compliance et droit processuel" ("Compliance and Procedural Law"), in B. Deffains, M.-A. Frison-Roche and J.-B. Racine (dir.), Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and University Panthéon-Assas (Paris II), Compliance : Obligation, devoir, pouvoir, culture (Compliance : obligation, duty, power, culture), University Panthéon-Assas, Salle des Conseils, 14 June 2023. - 🧮See the full programme of this event - 🎤see the other speech made during the first day of this symposium : "L'obligation de compliance, entre volonté et consentement : obligation sur obligation vaut" ("Compliance Obligation, between will and consent: obligation on obligation works")   - ► Summary of the conference: After referring to the chapter in the book Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, which deals more specifically with Procedural Law¹See the articles that are part of the Second chapter of the book 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), 📘Compliance jurisdictionalisation, 2023 : 🕴️N. Cayrol, 📝General Procedural Law in Compliance Law,, the conference is built around 5 developments, each of which represents a progression. The first development relates to the fact that the relationship between Compliance Law and Procedural Law is very difficult because it is often said that they simply have nothing to do with each other, or that they have everything to dislike each other. This is because Compliance is often reduced to processes, and to the mechanical place that algorithms could take in it, in taking care of everything. Compliance would even have the purpose and effect of ensuring that the company and its managers never come into contact with a judge, the public prosecutor being their best ally in this respect. Secondly, I recalled the very common idea that Procedural Law is a kind of 'tribute' that the rule of Law demands, which certainly weighs down companies when compared with companies living in systems in which there's not not such a price. But many stress that Procedural Law could become a model. This can be justified and technically anticipated because it has already happened in Regulation Law, and Compliance Law is the deployment of it²🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 🚧From Regulation Law to Compliance Law, 2017. 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche, 🎤Le rôle du Juge dans le déploiement du Droit de la Régulation en Droit de la Compliance (The role of the Judge in the deployment of Regulatory Law in Compliance Law), in 🧮De la Régulation à la Compliance : quel rôle pour le Juge ?, 2023.. In the third stage, I worked on the alliance between the two, with the procedure (rather than the process) modifying compliance and thereby reinforcing it, evoking the way in which this can manifest itself technically³Notably in this perspective, 🕴️M.-A. Frison-Roche and 🕴️M. Boissavy, 📕Compliance et droits de la défense. Enquête interne - CJIP - CRPC (Compliance and Due Process. Internal Investigation - DPA), 2024.. In the fourth step, I looked for what would be the "naturally appropriate procedure" for Compliance: one that takes into account the duration and the development of "solutions", to which the notion of "sustainability", which is central in the substantive Law of Compliance, refers. In a fifth stage, and devoting more time to this, I have pointed out where innovation should be the strongest: the proof, the probatory obligation being the "part totale" ("total part") of the compliance obligation. This major issue will be the subject of a series of symposiums held in 2024. -