Breaking news

► Compliance Law is essential for the future of Africa: this is also a lesson from the Juin 2021 G7 Summit in its Infrastructure Plan.  It emerges from the G7 summit which ends on June 13, 2021 in Carbis Bay in the United Kingdom, a common desire to increase infrastructures in Africa, in itself and because otherwise China will do it, and will do it differently. Compliance Law will be determinant in this common action for three reasons. First and because the issue is about infrastructures, the construction and the management of infrastructures falling more under Regulatory Law than Competition Law (📕Chevalier, J.-M., Frison-Roche, M.-A, Keppler, J.EPPLER, J.H. et Noumba, P. (ed.), Économie et droit de la régulation des infrastructures. Perspectives des pays en voie de développement, 2009). However, Compliance Law is not a simple process for the effectiveness of rules which are external to it, it is the extension in companies of Regulatory Law. Where companies must implement regulatory goals within themselves, they develop Compliance rules (➡️📝see Frison-Roche, M.A., From Regulation Law to Compliance Law, 2017.  Secondly and because the issue is about Africa, the Rule of Law is sometimes not very solid there. By internalizing Regulatory Law in companies (or even by associating Arbitration with it), Compliance Law makes it possible to get out of this dead end (➡️📝Salah, MM, Conception and Application of Compliance in Africa, in 📕 Frison-Roche, M.-A. (ed.), Compliance Tools, 2021. Thirdly and because the topic si about China, Compliance Law in its European conception has the Monumental Goal of defending individuals while in its Chinese conception it aims to obtain their obedience to the rules (➡️📝Frison-Roche, M.-A., In China, Compliance Law deploys without, and even against democracy, China seeing Compliance only as an "efficiency process"; in Europe, it deploys with and even for democracy, 2021). On construction sites and in the human management of infrastructures, this changes everything. G7 members share the first conception. They must now implement it by their companies and thanks to them, private sector being in alliance with the political authorities which just expressed. Because Compliance Law is an alliance between political authorities and crucial economic operators.   ► register to French Newsletter MaFR ComplianceTech®

►  Money Laundering, Cryptocurrency and the Art of Saying It: the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) statement of June 3, 2021 and the Art of Saying It. Law is softer than ever.   The English have their way of saying things: thus the Financial Conduct Authority -FCA, the British financial market regulator, published on June 3, 2021 a press release whose expression is remarkable. Its subject matter is crypto-assets and, like in an essay plan à la française, it is built in two parts.  In the part I, it is just mentioned that the deadline for companies in this industry to obtain a registration, which was due to end soon, will be postponed to March 2022. Why? Because almost all of them have not been able to demonstrate their ability not to be resistant to money laundering and other criminal activities. This is in no way presented as a conviction, just the objective cause of a postponement of the date, the time for the Financial Regulatory Authority to better examine the files, themselves to be completed by applicants. The part II concerns consumer protection. The Authority point out that the consumer can lose everything in an extremely risky products and underlines that it is unlikely that this ruined layman will even be able to access the ombudsman to obtain anything. It is purely informative. This is how the English bodies formulate their opinion on cryptoasset. It's elegant (the press is more direct). This also makes it possible not to be covered with insults by the worshipers of these objects: are expressed just a technical delay granted and not a conviction that cryptoasset could be per se  an instrument of criminality, just a probationary difficulty ; and just a regret on the non-access to the ombudsman for these cryptoassets consumers. But if the evolution of the bubble leads these investors to ruine shows, the Regulator will have warned and expressed in advance the regrets he had of the lack of legal technique to protect them. And if the facts show that it is massively through cryptocurrency that the crime is whitewashed, the Regulator has shown everyone his prudence, the delay it will have take to examine the files  and its kind foresight. No one more than a British knows what Liability is.    -        

► Do Compliance and Democracy have a relationship? China replies: no. Europe responds and must respond: they are intimate. The definition of Compliance Law is therefore essential. In an interview of great clarity  given in French to the Newspaper Les Echos on June 2, 2021, about Brexit, China and Russia (➡️📝 "Brexit, Chine, Russie : les confidences de la diplomate Sylvie Bermann"), Sylvie Bermann reminds the evolution of China. She sums up the situation as follows: « La Chine ne veut pas dominer le monde, elle veut être la première et surtout qu'on ne puisse pas lui imposer un système, la démocratie » ("China does not want to dominate the world, it wants to be the first and above all that no one can impose on it a system, Democracy,"). This is reflected in China's conception of Compliance Law. If one defines Compliance Law only as a "method" for the effectiveness of rules, consisting of a kind of "Ex Ante enforcement process" leading to 100% effectiveness of regulations by subjects who must show to everyone the respect they have for these regulations and who are rewarded by this proof thus given, then China, in its current use of Law, illustrates exactly this definition: subjects, individuals and companies, prove their "obedience" to rules – whatever the rules" substantial content -, which is evaluated ("rating") and rewarded, in a mechanical reign of the Ex Ante, served by technologies. Democratic mechanisms are not required; they are even disturbed, because they interfere with the efficiency of the system. The technological and purely technocratic conception of Compliance ("Regulation by data", for example) uses the same definition of Compliance Law, which leads to choose algorithms’ efficiency. Europe must keep going to make another choice: European Compliance was born out of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s case law, in the 2014 judgment, Google Spain (➡️📝CJEU, Google Spain, May 13, 2021), to protect the person by inventing a subjective right: the right to be forgotten, in a digital space with infinite memory. Based on the Rule of Law, Compliance Law is then defined by its Monumental Goals, which are the protection of people and puts the judge at the center. It is the reverse of Chinese mechanics. Therefore, they are definitions that lead the world: about the definition of Compliance Law by "Monumental Goals", see ➡️📅 the 2021 cycle of colloquia co-organized by the Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC) and its university partners on Monumental Goals; on the technical influence of this definition on "Compliance tools" ➡️📕see Frison-Roche, M.-A., Legal Approach to Compliance Tools: Building by Law the unity of Compliance Tools from the definition of Compliance Law by its "Monumental Goals", 2021.   ►subscribe to the MaFR ComplianceTech® Newsletter

►"Fatality" is now disputed. Compliance Law is the effective concretization of its challenge.  Until recently, as in the Middle Ages, the idea of ​​fatality was present everywhere. "Fatality" is a future fact, already acquired in the present, already seen and against which it is useless to act. It was "fatal" that children were slaves; it was "fatal" that we were dominated by platforms which amuse us "for free"; it was "fatal" that pollution increases. This fatality brings us to the "catastrophe" but we did not want to do anything right here and right now. No doubt because it mainly concerns others. Child slaves are not ours, the dispossession operated by digital platforms is painless for us, pollution will make future generations disappear. This has changed for some time, perhaps because we now care about "other people". We would therefore like to stop the fatality for facts that concern others: children far away, creators, future generations. Or the abstractions which sum up this: the “Person”, Creation and Democracy, Sovereignty, Humanity. But what to do ? When we presented Law as not deserving its capital letter, a simple technique of maximizing particular projects between two operators in order to secure them, the particular contract being therefore the model of everything, in an efficient way of doing things (the "procedure "). We must build a new Law on these abstract notions: it is Compliance Law which aims these concrete goals, which are Monumental Goals. Imposing them on economic operators and rejoice in their power because the more powerful they are, the more productive the internalization of these goals and the obligation to achieve them will be. Under the direct control of the public supervisory authorities.   ► subscribe to the MaFR ComplianceTech® Newsletter

►Compliance Law, alliance between political authorities and systemic private operators: we are getting it there.    Crises are also times when reality appears more clearly. Thus said "health crisis" makes it appear more clearly what the "financial crises" had done: Compliance Law is the way in which political authorities, faced with a major global problem, form an alliance with companies which are in a position to resolve it (➡️📝Frison-Roche, M.-A., Place and Role of companies in the creation and effectiveness of Compliance Law in crisis, 2021). The G7 has just formulated it by deciding on the principle of distributing vaccines to the whole world made with money from the richest countries and the more or less forced cooperation of systemic operators, in particular pharmaceutical laboratories. G7 is thinking about the next health crises. In fact, Compliance Law is an Ex Ante Law which aims to prevent a potential crisis. The following problems are twofold. First, the very challenging next crisis should be the environmental crisis. Its "prevention" is a "monumental goal". An "Environmental Compliance Law" begins to set up, for example through the "public interest judicial agreement" (law of December 2020), or the internalization of goals into companies. But if in terms of health it is already difficult to designate companies "in position" (because there are not only laboratories …), it is even more difficult in environmental matters because environment is not a "sector". "Ex Ante responsibility" is more difficult to establish, but it is also more vital too (➡️📝Frison-Roche, M.-A., Environmental Compliance Law, as Ex Ante Responsibility, 2020). Moreover, in Compliance Law so that the private companies which maintain the system are not the masters of it, they are supervised by public supervisory authorities which control them in Ex Ante, inspect them, etc., according to the banking model. It has been taken up in the digital space, an essential role fulfilled for example by the CSA (French media regulator) or the CNIL (French personal data regulator). But in terms of protection of environment, there stil is no Authority, which will operate in Ex Ante (and therefore continuously) this supervision. This is not irrelevant. We could entrust this to the European Central Bank: since finance is already green, we can ask it. Perhaps even without a specific text (in this sense, see ➡️📝Frison-Roche, M.-A., Compliance Law, Health Crisis and Future, 2020,) And the main thing is to move forward in this dazzling Compliance Law, by which, to avoid collapse, a new Law is born, leaving there borders and distinctions, allowing unprecedented alliances, to save human lives in far countries.

► Compliance: being in principle clear in the powers that the political authority gives or refuses to companies On May 28, 2021, the Federal Agency published guidelines on how companies could or could not compel their employees with regard to vaccination, with regard to civil rights and freedoms, especially religious freedoms, of workers, especially those who say they don't want to be (➡️📝EEOC, EEOC Issues Updated COVID-19 Technical Assistance, May 28, 2021). The question is to strike a balance between the two. It is often said that "Common Law" is casuistic and that Civil Law lays down principles. In this health crisis, we can see rather the opposite. American Law, which is very different from British Law, arises from "agencies", which speak clearly and quickly. The assertion is clear and plain. The document is two pages long. The principle is fixed: it is the principle of a power for the company to force to the vaccination. With one exception: the right for a person to request accommodations (undoubtedly teleworking) if this does not place too heavy a burden on the employer. As a result, on June 9, 2021, The New York Times headlines directly and simply on the principle: "yes, your employer can require you to be vaccinated" (➡️📝New York Times, Yes, your employer can require you to be vaccinated, June 9, 2021). Isn't this always how the "qualities" of "Continental Law" are praised? In times of crisis, proceeding in principle: "authorized / prohibited" then (because any principle supports exceptions) say one or two exceptions, simple and the mode of operation. No more. More generally, because the public authority must keep the normative authority for itself, it must clearly state what the company has the power to do in principle: yes or no. It is in a second level that it can deploy "Compliance tools", in the political decision thus adopted. In "Compliance by Design", this is essential, because otherwise the company will only be able to invent, under cover of technical casuistry, principles (on this dimension, see Cécile Granier, ➡️📝The normative originality of Compliance by Design, in ➡️📕"Compliance Tools", 2021). And the company, thus left to itself, will have great pleasure and interest in doing so. Who doesn't appreciate to become a Legislator?

► The European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO), a major weapon for the Compliance Law.   The European Union's prosecutor comes out of its cradle : the "European Public Prosecutor's Office" starts its activities. Long to set up, this European judicial body is linked to delegated prosecutors in the Member States. It is not a simple emanation of national bodies networked; of autonomous competence, it is the organ in the name of which the action is carried out. In addition to this institutional revolution, there is a substantial revolution: this European Public Prosecutor's Office can prosecute any attack to the "financial interests of the European Union". These "attacks on financial interests" are conceived broadly, including in particular acts of corruption or embezzlement. First of all, Didier Reynders emphasizes that this puts the rule of Law at the center. It is no longer Europe supporting actions to be coordinated between States, the national prosecution having technical difficulties to cooperate effectively with each other, but the European Public Prosecutor's Office which will allow unified and effective European action between delegated prosecutors. Secondly, it continues the string of effectiveness between Compliance, located in Ex Ante, Compliance Law consisting in "preventing" and "detecting" such behavior, and the Ex Post, because a judge is sometimes necessary so that the disregard of these Ex Ante obligations is sometimes sanctioned (➡️📝Frison-Roche, M.-A., Compliance and International Public Order: the French conception preserved by the Paris Cour of Appeal, 2021) but also a prosecution: the prosecutor is a major figure in Compliance Law. Indeed, being able to prosecute, the prosecutor can also not prosecute and change its decision to close the file in returns for commitments (Ex Ante) from the company: the "public interest judicial agreements" – CJIP. In fact, through the opportunity to prosecute, will such powerful flexibility be found at European level? Thirdly, the prospect of prosecution by the European Public Prosecutor's Office will incent in Ex Ante companies to prevent, or to prosecute themselves (➡️🎤Frison-Roche, M.-A. et Roda, J.-C. (dir.), The firm instituted prosecutor and judge of itself by Compliance Law, Lyon, June 23, 2021) the perpetrators of fraud in the interests of the Union European. At a time when the Union is engaging in direct loans to lend still more, this role of the company, sometimes qualified as "private prosecutor", linked to a prosecutor, now European, is necessary. Are we moving towards the alliance of all prosecutors?