Corruption

► 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: J.-B. Racine, “L’arbitre, juge, superviseur, accompagnateur ?” (The arbitrator, judge, supervisor, coach?), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (dir.), L’Obligation de Compliance, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Lefebvre-Dalloz, coll. “Régulations & Compliance“, 2025, pp. 489-502. - 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): From the outset, the author sets out what is at stake in these terms: “Quel rôle peut ou pourrait jouer l’arbitre dans les dispositifs de compliance ? Selon le rôle qu’il est amené à jouer, il peut ou pourrait venir en renfort de l’obligation de compliance. Poser cette question, c’est poser la question des pouvoirs de l’arbitre et de son office. C’est aussi, d’une certaine manière, renvoyer à la notion même d’arbitrage.” (What role can or could the arbitrator play in compliance systems? Depending on the role he/she is called upon to play, he/she can or could reinforce the compliance obligation. Asking this question raises the question of the powers of the arbitrator and his/her office. In a way, it also goes back to the very notion of arbitration). In practice, arbitrators deal with compliance issues in their office as judges. This is illustrated by disputes involving allegations of corruption, where the arbitrators’ ruling obviously cannot give effect to a corrupt practice unless they violate themselves international public order. But in this, the arbitrator is only applying a legal standard, the main issue being then the question of evidence, with compliance tools often serving as indicators of the corruption itself. Leaving behind the strict legal source and coming to the standards issued by the ICC about the fight against corruption, we really enter into the “compliance obligation”, in the strict sense, when a contract appears. International business practices standards are emerging, not only in the area of probity but also in the protection of human rights, for which arbitrators can now act as guarantors. Arbitrators can do this, in particular, through the emerging litigation relating to vigilance obligation, either directly when vigilance plans are at issue,, even if a legal rule gives a specific competence to a State court (as the French 2017 law does) or if we imagine that a plan itself includes a system for recourse to arbitration, which would imply a change in culture, or if we consider that soft law is in the process of emerging from the practices of international trade laying down a duty of vigilance that arbitrators could take up. In the second part of his contribution, the author takes a second, bolder approach, namely that of an arbitrator who understands Compliance Law in that he/she would be more than a Judge, i.e. he/she would do more than settle a dispute by applying the law. This would be conceivable given the tendency to consider that the arbitrator could modify contracts and if example is taken from the technique of arbitration practised for concentration disputes in merger law. To give arbitration the required regulatory dimension, this third party would have to be able to exercise a supervisory function, which the notion of “dispute” hardly lends itself to, especially as an arbitrator is only set up to be a judge, and if he/she ceases to be one it is difficult for him/her to remain an arbitrator…. However, it is conceivable that in Ex Post the arbitrator could perform the monitoring function often required in Compliance Law. The technique of disputes boards is inspiring in this respect. The two fields, Arbitration and Compliance, are thus destined to move closer together, as the two traditional limits, arbitrability and litigation, are in the process of evolving so that they no longer stand in the way of such rapprochements. The author can therefore conclude: “C’est aux différents acteurs de la compliance de penser à l’arbitrage, et à la souplesse, la plasticité et la liberté qu’il offre, pour éventuellement le configurer spécialement au service des buts de la compliance.” (It is up to the various players in Compliance to think about Arbitration, and the flexibility, plasticity and freedom it offers, in order to configure it specifically to serve the goals of Compliance Law). - 🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche’s courses -

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche, hearing before the French working group on the modernisation of French Arbitration Law, about the issue Arbitrage et Droit de la Compliance : est-il besoin d'un texte ? ("Arbitration and Compliance Law: is a text required?"), Directorate of Civil Affairs' French Ministry of Justice, 13 February 2025. - ► Result of this presentation and the ensuing discussion, recorded in the working group's report published in March 2025 (published in French, translated her: "This report on the guiding principles would not be complete without mentioning the discussions in the working group on the introduction of a guiding principle requiring the arbitral tribunal to take into account "human, environmental and compliance issues, as well as respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms of the parties".This proposal gave rise to particularly heated discussions. Some saw it as a scarecrow likely to make French Arbitration Law less attractive and to weaken Arbitration awards, opening up cases of recourse on the pretext of bad faith, even though these values would already be taken into account in the review of domestic or international public policy.  Others, on the other hand, felt that such a text would have the advantage of enshrining an Arbitration Law connected to values that are not exclusively economically oriented, pointing out, moreover, that such a principle would not be redundant with the control of public policy, which intervenes ex post, whereas this text imposes Ex Ante responsability, and that this principle would allow a noteworthy introduction of Compliance Law in rbitration.  They added that the promotion of such values could make it possible to demonstrate a commitment to virtuous arbitration practice. In the light of these differences, after much hesitation, the decision was made not to include it in the draft Code, considering that the final choice was more a question of political dimension that the working group felt it could not decide on its own. ". (p. 36).   - ► English Summary of the presentation: My presentation deals with the relationship between Compliance Law and Arbitration, particularly International Arbitration. It is built around 12 successive points. The work I have carried out on these various points is associated with it. It precedes the answers I shall give to the questions put by the members of the working group and the ensuing discussion.   1. stagnation in the relationship between Arbitration and Compliance Law, due to continuing misunderstandings about Compliance 2. progress towards a better understanding of Compliance and the appropriateness of the arbitrator's role within Compliance Law 3. prospects for the growing relationship between Compliance Law and Arbitration, particularly with regard to the value chains built up by international companies 4. educational issues 5. time required to build a "culture of place" in this matter 6. "Doctrinal" difficulties 7. benefit from the production of a "doctrine of place" on this subject 8. going beyond the continental summa divisio of Public Law and Private Law 9. practical assimilation of Regulatory Contracts in sustainable sectors and chains 10. opening up the Arbitration World to this articulation with Compliance Law 11.  Can an official legal text contribute to this? 12.  example of the guiding principles of the French Code of Civil Procedure. -   🔓read the presentation developments below⤵️

► 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, E. Silva Romero, G. Filhol, V. Autret, B. Sillaman et K. Hennessee, Compliance & arbitrage : les prémices d’une symbiose, propos recueillis par O. Delaunay, LJA Magazine, septembre-octobre 2024, pp. 12-20 - 💬read the collective interview (in French) - read the presentation of this interview on LinkedIn - ► Topics covered during this collective interview:  The development of Compliance in an international environment The Arbitrator and the concept of Compliance Linking Arbitration and Compliance systems - ► Summary of my interventions: Compliance Law appears to be developing in the context of international trade and Arbitration. For my part, I placed particular emphasis on the fact that the first reports were the result of "negative reports" between Compliance and Arbitration, through Criminal Law and the obligation of arbitrators to ensure that they don't give effectivity to pacts of corruption. But the future lies in a more 'positive' and fruitful relationship between this new branch of law, Compliance Law, and the solid prospect offered by Arbitration, in that the arbitrator, this natural judge of international trade, will be able to support the contractualisation of Compliance obligations, particularly about due diligences in structural chains of activities and duty of vigilance. Thus competent, the international arbitrator must respond to what the Monumental Goals in which Compliance Law is rooted expect of him/her: to provide solutions and remedies to issues that often concern an entire chain of activity or an entire sector in a more systemic perspective than in a traditional conception. This applies not only to investment arbitration, but also, for instance, to infrastructure arbitration. The concern for sustainability and the systemic perspective must be integrated into the reasoning and produce appropriate case law, a sort of new doctrine in the arbitration order, that will make more attractive the arbitration place that will most solidly link the skills of specialists in Compliance Law and Arbitration Law.

► Full reference: E. Silva-Romero, "Droit de la Compliance : Arbitrage International et géopolitique" ("Compliance Law: International Arbitration and Geopolitics"), interview conducted by M.-A. Frison-Roche as part of a series of interviews on Compliance Law, in Fenêtres ouvertes sur la gestion (Open windows on management), broadcast by J.-Ph. Denis, Xerfi Canal, recorded December 12, 2023, recorded April 27, 2024 - 🌐consult the presentation of Eduardo Silva-Romero's interview on LinkedIn - 🎥view the full interview on Xerfi Canal -   ► Starting point: In 2023, Eduardo Silva-Romero wrote a contribution:📝What place is there for compliance in investment arbitration?, in the book 📘Compliance Jurisdictionalisation 🧱read the presentation of this contribution ➡️click HERE - ► Summary of interview: Marie-Anne Frison-Roche. Question: What is the place of Compliance in international investment arbitration and, first of all, what is its specificity?   Edouardo Silva-Romero. Answer: International investment arbitration is based on a treaty, generally signed between two States, which agree to protect the investments that companies make in the host State. The resulting disputes may give rise to this specific type of arbitration.   Compliance has a special place here, because if the investment is tainted by corruption or fails to respect human rights, it will not be protected by the arbitrators, as the host state is no longer bound. - MaFR. Q.: So, through Compliance, states can assert their sovereignty?   E.S-R. A.: Yes, through the social dimension of Compliance, States can assert their social conception and impose it in investment arbitration. - MaFR. Q.: Is the attractiveness of the Paris marketplace enhanced?   E.S-R. A.: The International Court of Arbitration is headquartered in Paris, and it's clear that this presence, combined with Compliance's humanistic approach to investment arbitration, is an essential element of attractiveness. Because of the technicalities involved, it is essential for international arbitrators to master compliance law in order to participate in this new element of attractiveness, as it takes the form of rules of public order, and this is also how the Paris Court of Appeal exercises its control over awards. -

► Full Reference: L. Aynès, M.-A. Frison-Roche, J.-B. Racine and E. Silva-Romero (dir.), L’arbitrage international en renfort de l’obligation de Compliance (International Arbitration in support of the Compliance Obligation), Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Institute of World Business Law of the ICC (Institute), Conseil Économique Social et Environnemental (CESE), Paris, February 9, 2024 - consult on LinkedIn a general présentation of this event, which links to a presentation and a report of each speech - 🏗️This symposium takes place in the cycle of symposiums organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its partners Universities, focusing in 2023-2024 on the general theme of the Compliance Obligation - 📚The works will then be inserted in the books: 📕L’obligation de Compliance, to be published in the 📚Régulations & Compliance Serie, co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, published in French. 📘Compliance Obligation, to be published on the 📚Compliance & Regulation Serie, co-published by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, published in English. - ► General presentation of the symposium: “Compliance Obligation” appears to be far from International Arbitration if Compliance Law is only understood in terms of binding regulations or even Criminal Law. Arbitration would only have contact with Compliance Obligation in a repulsive way, when a person claims to have enforced a contract before an arbitration court that disregards a compliance prohibition, e.g. corruption or money laundering. It is therefore from a negative angle that the cross-over has taken place. The fact that Arbitration Law respects the requisite of Criminal Law is nothing new. Moreover, the power of Compliance in its detection and prevention tools, particularly in terms of evidence, no doubt increases the global efficiency. But Compliance Obligation is based on Monumental Goals, notably linked to global human rights and active ambitions about environment and climate which, particularly in the value chain economy, take the legal form of compliance clauses, or even compliance contracts, or various commitments and plans, which the parties can ask the international arbitrator to enforce. They will do so even more as arbitrators are often the only international, or even global, judges available. The use they will do of Contract Law, Quasi-Contract Law, Enforcement Law, Tort Law, reinforces Compliance Law in a global dimension. - - ► Interviennent : 🎤 Laurent Aynès, emeritus Professor at Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University, Attorney, Darrois Villey Maillot Brochier (Paris) 🎤 Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, Professor of Regulatory and Compliance Law, Director of the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) 🎤 Jean-François Guillemin, former General Secretary of the Bouygues Group 🎤 Christophe Lapp, Attorney, Advant Altana (Paris) 🎤 Jean-Baptiste Racine, Full Professor at Paris Panthéon-Assas University (Paris 2) 🎤 Eduardo Silva-Romero, President of the Institute of World Business Law of the ICC (Institute), Attorney, Wordstone (Paris) - 🧮Read a detailed presentation of the event below⤵️

► 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: Ch. Lapp, "Compliance in Companies: The Statutes of the Process", in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Bruylant, "Compliance & Regulation" Serie,  2024, pp. 155-166  - 📘read a general presentation of the book, Compliance Jurisdictionalisation, in which this article is published - ► The summary below describes an article following the colloquium 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) , 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 Jan-Marc Coulon, who is also a contributor in the book (see the summary of the Jean-Marc Coulon'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 Company is caught in the grip of Compliance Law, the jaws of which are those of Incitement (1) and Sanction that the Company must apply to ensure the effectiveness of its processes to which it is itself subject (2 ). First, the Company has been delegated to fabricate reprehensible rules that it must apply to itself and to third parties with whom it has dealings. To this end, the Company sets up "processes", that is to say verification and prevention procedures, in order to show that the offenses that it is likely to commit will not happened. These processes constitute standards of behavior to prevent and avoid that the facts constituting the infringements are not themselves carried out. They are thus one of the elements of Civil Liability Law in its preventive or restorative purposes. Second, the sanction of non obedience of Compliance processes puts the Company in front of two pitfalls. The first  dimension place the company, with regard to its employees and its partners, in the obligation to define processes which also constitute the quasi-jurisdictional resolution of their non-compliance, the company having to reconcile the sanction it pronounces with the fundamental principles of classical Criminal Law, constitutional principles and all fundamental rights. The processes then become the procedural rule. The second dimension is that the Company is accountable for the effectiveness of the avoidance by its processes of facts constituting infringements. By a reversal of the burden of proof, the Company is then required to prove that its processes are efficient. at least equivalent to the measures defined by laws and regulations, the French Anti-Corruption Agency (Agence Française Anticorruption – AFA), European directives and various communications on legal tools to fight breaches of probity, environmental attacks and current societal concerns. The processes then become the constitutive element, per se, of the infringement. Thus, in its search for a balance between Prevention and Sanction to which it is itself subject, the Company will not then be tempted to favor the orthodoxy of its processes over the expectations of the Agence Française Anticorruption – AFA , regulators and judges, to the detriment of their efficiency? In doing so, are we not moving towards an instrumental and conformist Compliance, paradoxically disempowering with regard to the Compliance Monumental Goals of Compliance? - 🦉This article is available in full text to those registered for Professor Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's courses -

► Full Reference: M.-A. Frison-Roche & Arnoldo Wald, "Le cas Petrobras, une juste adéquation de la responsabilité pour protéger les personnes impliquées dans des systèmes globaux" ("The Petrobras case: the right balance of responsibility to protect those involved in global systems"), RIDC, July-September 2023, No. 3, pp. 563-582. - ► Summary of the article: This article briefly outlines the main aspects of corporate liability in the capital market under Brazilian law, arising from the company’s duty to inform shareholders and investors, followed by a commentary on the recent partial award in an arbitration brought by minority shareholders against Petrobras, which underlines the legitimacy of the minority shareholders to engage the company’s liability. - follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on LinkedIn follow Marie-Anne Frison-Roche on Instagram subscribe to the Newsletter MAFR Regulation, Compliance, Law

► Full Reference : Agence française anticorruption – AFA (French Anticoruption Agency), Presentation of various regulatory frameworks for promoting business integrity across the world, Study, May 2023. - 📜read the study -

► Full Reference: Agence française anticorruption – AFA (French Anti-Corruption Agency) and Parquet national financier – PNF (French National Financial Prosecutor's Office), Internal anti-corruption investigations. Practical Guide, march 2023.  - 📜read the guide -  

► Full Reference: J.-B. Racine, “Compliance et Arbitrage. Essai de problématisation” (“Compliance and Arbitration : Problematisation”, in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, coll. “Régulations & Compliance“, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2023, pp. 265-279. - read a general presentation of the book, La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, in which this article is published - ► The summary below describes an article that follows an intervention in the scientific manifestation Compliance et Arbitrage, co-organised by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and the University Panthéon-Assas (Paris II). This conference was designed by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche and Jean-Baptiste Racine, scientific co-directors, and took place in Paris II University on March 31, 2021. In the book, the article will be published in Title II, devoted to: Compliance et Arbitrage. - ► Summary of the article (done by the author): Under the consideration of the “Compliance Juridictionalisation”, it is necessary to study in the links between Compliance and Arbitration. The arbitrator is a judge, he is even the natural judge of international trade. Arbitration is therefore naturally intended to meet compliance which transforms the action of companies in an international context. However, the links between compliance and arbitration are not obvious. It is not a question of providing firm and definitive answers, but rather, and above all, of asking questions. We are at the start of reflection on this topic, which explains why there is, for the time being, little legal literature on the subject of the relationship between Compliance and Arbitration. It doesn’t mean there aren’t connections. Quite simply, these relations may not have come to light, or they are in the making. We should research the existing or potential bridges between two worlds that have long gravitated separately: Compliance on the one hand, Arbitration on the other. The central question is: is or can the arbitrator be a compliance judge, and, if so, how? In any event, the Arbitrator is thus in contact with matters requiring the methods, tools and logic of Compliance. In addition to the prevention and suppression of corruption, three examples can be given. Arbitration has been facing economic sanctions (notably embargoes) for several years. The link with Compliance is obvious, insofar as texts providing for economic sanctions are often accompanied by compliance mechanisms, as in the United States. The arbitrator is concerned as to the fate he reserves in the treatment of the dispute with the measures of economic sanctions. Competition Law is a branch that came into contact with Arbitration from the end of the 1980s. The arbitrability of this type of dispute is now established and arbitrators apply it regularly. At the same time, Compliance has also entered Competition Law, admittedly more strongly in the United States than in France. The existence, absence or insufficiency of a compliance program aimed at preventing violations of the competition rules are thus circumstances which may assist the arbitrator in the assessment of anti-competitive behavior. Environmental Law is also concerned. There is environmental Compliance, for example with regard to the French law of March 27, 2017 on the duty of vigilance. Companies are thus responsible for participating in the protection of the environment, by internalizing these concerns in their internal and external operations (in their sphere of influence). As soon as an arbitrator is in charge for settling a dispute relating to Environmental Law, the question of the relationship to Compliance, from this angle, naturally arises. It is therefore the multiple interactions between Compliance and Arbitration, actual or potential, which are thus open. -

► Full Reference: A. Bruneau, “L’entreprise juge d’elle-même : la fonction compliance dans la banque” (“The company judge of itself: the compliance function inside the bank”), in M.-A. Frison-Roche (ed.), La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, coll. “Régulations & Compliance“, Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and Dalloz, 2023, pp. 115-131. - read a general presentation of the book, La juridictionnalisation de la Compliance, in which this article is published - ► Summary of the article (done by the author): First of all, it should be remembered that the compliance function was born within finance, and that by being structured, it has evolved to support the transition from regulatory law to compliance law. Through these changes, compliance has gone from an ex-post controlling function to an ex-ante binding function. The LIBOR crisis imperfectly illustrates the primacy of this transition. The evolution of this role is illustrated by concrete examples Firstly, the management of reputational risk is a fundamental part of the company as prosecutor and judge of itself. Reputational risk is a significant element for a financial institution, because it can have negative consequences on its capitalization, or even culminate in a systemic crisis. Avoiding a large-scale financial crisis is also part of the monumental goals of compliance. In order to avoid complex and inopportune scenarios, compliance law intervenes as early as possible and identifies issues that may impact reputation. The regulations require the implementation of certain ex ante mechanisms. The French law known as “Sapin 2” requires the implementation of tools that concern all companies (and not just banks). Indeed, beyond the risk of reputation, it is essential to consider the risk of corruption. Consideration of reputational risk may justify refusing to execute certain transactions. From this perspective, compliance must assess the potential consequences of entering into a relationship with a new client upstream, sometimes to decline the provision of services. The compliance function therefore unilaterally judges the relationship with a view to managing the company reputational risk. Secondly, the internal sanction mechanism established by compliance law is also discussed in this article, in particular the internal sanctions adopted by compliance in a financial institution. Compliance can act as a prosecutor via management committees set up within the business lines. In addition, compliance can determine and apply sanctions against employees. In this way, there is a dual role of prosecutor and judge for the compliance function within the framework of an extraordinary mechanism of ordinary law. Finally, the analysis deals with the case of the “judge-judged”: following a decision by the bank, the regulator may take an even stricter position by believing that the bank is applying its guidelines incorrectly. Thus, the compliance law, which takes hold within the banking enterprise, finds itself under the judgment of its own regulator. The company finds itself judged and comes to be a prosecutor and judge of itself, but also of its clients. -

Full reference: AFA, Commission des sanctions (sanctions commission), Société I. SA, Decision n°19-2, July 7, 2021 Read the decision (in French)

► It is in its "Risk and Compliance" section that the Wall Street Journal, by its article of June 18, 2021 (➡️📝Europe's Chief Prosecutor Has 300 Cases on Her Plate Already), presents the first steps of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, since June 1, 2021. This inclusion presupposes that it is through a Compliance Law perspective that this new body must be understood, in order to understand and anticipate its action. ►In this perspective : ➡️📧Frison-Roche, M.-A., European Public Prosecutor's Office comes on stage: the company having itself become a private prosecutor, are we going towards an alliance of all prosecutors?, June 2, 2021 ➡️ 💬Frison-Roche, « Le parquet européen est un apport considérable au Droit de la Compliance » (“The European Public Prosecutor's Office is a remarkable contribution to Compliance Law"), June 14, 2021   I. AN ACTION THAT WILL FOCUS ON FIGHTING THE MEANS USED TO DAMAGE THE FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION The article of the Wall Street Journal takes the form of an interview with the European Prosecutor. Her responses also confirm the consubstantial link between European Public Prosecutor's Office and Compliance Law. It is remarkable that she immediately says that she hopes the treatment of many cases, especially on healthcare and infrastructure sectors: "Our expectation is to have more cases, especially in the healthcare system, in public procurement, infrastructure, and also in agriculture ". However, the 2017 European Regulation which established the European Public Prosecutor’s Office said that its "mandate" is to prosecute offenses affecting the "financial interests of the European Union", without being hampered by the cumbersome procedures for cooperation between States while these offenses are most often cross-border. But one could think that, knowingly taking the means (corruption, money laundering) for the goal, the European Public Prosecutor's Office would immediately pursue not only the defense of the financial interests of the Union (admittedly financial interests damaged by corruption or money laundering) but these facts themselves: thus the European Public Prosecutor's Office works with the European Supervisory Authorities, in particular banking and financial authorities, which fight in Ex Ante against these offenses and prevent them.   II. AN ACTION THAT FOCUSES ON SECTORS NOT LEGALLY REGULATED IN EX ANTE BY SECTORAL REGULATORY AUTHORITIES Moreover, it will be noted that the European Prosecutor is targeting three economic sectors which are not "regulated sectors" in the legal sense of the qualification, that is to say not monitored by a sectoral Regulatory and/or Supervision Authority: Health, Infrastructure and Agriculture. Thus, the power of Regulatory Law, which relies in its Ex Ante, and its weakness, which derives from the pre-required existence of a sectoral Authority, is compensated: the action of the Public Prosecutor's Office is not limited to legally regulated sectors. While Competition Authorities are mandated (➡️📅La concurrence dans tous ses états, June 25 and 26, 2021) to protect the competitive functioning of the markets, a Public Prosecutor's Office can deal with any infringement without having to determine a market. For instance, Infrastructures don't constitute pertinent markets but can constitute fields for criminal activities, such as corruption or money laundering, justifying Compliance Law mechanisms.  What the new European Prosecutor is aiming for, namely Health, Infrastructures and Agriculture, have undoubtedly been damaged both by the sole primacy of the Competition perspective and by a Criminal Law constrained by the difficult inter-State cooperation, even though they are not subject to a supranational Ex Ante Regulation. The European Public Prosecutor's Office aims to directly improve this, through Entreprises acting in Health, Infrastructures and Agriculture.  -   ► subscribe to the French Newsletter MaFR ComplianceTech®