{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":2,"sheets":["Coversheet","Lex Mundi Global Anti-Corruptio"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":1,"macros":0,"external_links":0,"defined_names":0,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"Coversheet","index":0,"n_rows":12,"n_cols":3,"rows_kept":12,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
[]
[]
[null,"Prepared By:","Contributors:"]
[null,"Gide Loyrette Nouel A.A.R.P.I.","Bruno Quentin"]
[null,null,"Sophie Scemla"]
[null,null,"Jean-Philippe Pons-Henry"]
[]
["Lex Mundi Global Anti-Corruption Compliance Guide"]
[]
["Report Generated: 11/19/2025"]
[]
["View your report results on next tab"]

{"sheet":"Lex Mundi Global Anti-Corruptio","index":1,"n_rows":13,"n_cols":2,"rows_kept":13,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["Question","France"]
["Anti-Corruption Compliance"]
["What is the key anti-bribery and corruption legislation in your jurisdiction?"," The key provisions incriminating bribery and corruption are located in the French Criminal Code , the most important of which can be divided into the following three main categories:  \n\n \n\t provisions relating to the prohibition of bribery of French public officials (mainly A rt. 432-11, 433-1 and 433-2 of the French Criminal Code ); \n\t provisions relating to the prohibition of bribery of foreign public officials (mainly A rt. 435-1, 435-2, 435-3 and 435-4 of the French Criminal Code ); and \n\t provisions relating to the prohibition of bribery of any person exercising a social or professional activity (mainly A rt. 445-1 and 445-2 of the French Criminal Code ). \n \n\n Essentially, these provisions prohibit: \n\n \n\t corruption, which is defined under French law as the fact of unduly proposing, at any time, directly or indirectly, offers, promises, gifts, presents, or any advantage, to a person, for the benefit of that person or a third party, so that this person accomplishes or abstains from accomplishing, or because he or she has accomplished or abstained from accomplishing, an act in the course of his or her office, mission or mandate, or facilitated by his or her office, mission or mandate; and  \n\t influence peddling, which is defined as making offers, promises, etc. in the same circumstances, so that a person abuses, or because this person has abused, of his or her real or supposed influence, so as to obtain from a public authority or administration, distinctions, jobs, markets, or any other favorable decision.   \n \n\n Corruption and influence peddling are also incriminated in the passive way (i.e. the act of requesting or accepting a bribe).  \n\n In the field of prevention, the key legislation is contained in the law no 2016-1691 of 9 December 2016 relating to transparency, fight against corruption and modernization of economic life, which is known as law “ Sapin 2 ” ( see infra ).  \n"]
["Has there been a specific anti-bribery and corruption law enacted in your jurisdiction in the last ten years?"," The Sapin 2  law has brought important changes in the field of anti-bribery and corruption, the most significant of which are the following: \n\n \n\t it created a new governmental agency, the French Anticorruption Agency which is in charge of promoting the prevention and detection of offenses such as corruption and influence peddling. In particular, this agency is responsible for controlling the validity of the compliance programs of companies and public entities which must have one;  \n\t it imposes on the directors of large companies (in essence companies with more than 500 employees and over 100 million euros of consolidated turnover), the obligation to adopt a compliance program to prevent and detect corruption and influence peddling (of which see more below);  \n\t it imposes in particular on companies with more than 50 employees the obligation to set up internal procedures to deal with the reporting of serious misconduct and introduced rules designed to protect whistleblowers; and \n\t it created a kind of deferred prosecution agreement, the convention judiciaire d’intérêt public (of which see more infra). \n \n\n On a different page, an order (ordonnance) of September 18, 2019, relating to the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law has implemented Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law. Broadly speaking, Art. 3 of the ordonnance increased the maximum fine incurred in case of active and passive bribery of French and foreign public officials from EUR 1 million to EUR 2 million where the commission of the offense prejudiced the financial interests of the European Union and the offense has been committed within a criminal organization.  \n"]
["Is a bribe payment to domestic government officials prohibited by the legislation?","Yes. There are specific provisions incriminating the payment of bribes to domestic government officials and more generally to French public officials, who are defined as persons either exercising public authority, or in charge of a public service, or who have been elected in a public office (\nsee supra).\n\n\n \n"]
["Is a bribe payment to foreign government officials prohibited by the legislation?","Yes. There are specific provisions incriminating the payment of bribes to foreign government officials and more generally to foreign public officials, who are defined as persons who are exercising a public authority, or in charge of a public service, or who have been elected in a public office in a foreign state or in an international public organization (\nsee supra).\n"]
["Is requesting or accepting a bribe prohibited by the legislation?","Yes. The legislation incriminates both active and passive corruption or influence peddling. \n"]
["Who is subject to the legislation?","The legislation applies to anyone, i.e. to natural or legal persons. \n"]
["Is there criminal liability for corporate entities who have either paid or accepted a bribe payment?","Yes. Under French criminal law, corporate entities are generally liable for offenses committed by people acting on their behalf. The liability of the company does not exclude the liability of the individual acting for the company. \n"]
["What is the penalty for individuals violating the law?","Depending on the provision breached, the maximum term of imprisonment is either five years or ten years, and the maximum fine is either EUR 500,000 or EUR 2 million For all provisions, the maximum fine can alternatively be up to twice the benefit drawn from the offense. A number of additional penalties may also be inflicted such as the prohibition to exercise certain professional activities or the publication of the decision.\n"]
["Assuming corporate entities are liable for violating the legislation, what is the penalty for corporate entities violating the law?","For corporate entities, the maximum fine is five times the amount applicable to individuals. A number of additional penalties may also be inflicted such as the interdiction to participate in public tenders, or the publication of the decision.\n"]
["Assuming corporate entities are liable for violating the legislation, does having a compliance program designed to prevent bribery constitute a defense?"," Under French law, the setting up of a compliance program is an obligation for large companies that are subject to Art. 17 of the Sapin 2 law, rather than a defense. \n\n Indeed, as indicated above, Art. 17 of this law makes it compulsory for such companies to have a compliance program, which must include:  \n\n \n\t a code of conduct describing the behavior which is prohibited for being likely to constitute corruption or influence peddling; \n\t an internal whistleblowing system; \n\t a mapping of the risks of exposure of the company to events of corruption; \n\t third party due diligence; \n\t books and records procedures to ensure the accounts are not used to dissimulate events of corruption or influence peddling; \n\t a training program for managers and persons who are exposed to the risk of corruption; \n\t a disciplinary regime enabling the sanctioning the employees who would have breached the code of conduct; and   \n\t a system of control and evaluation of the measures implemented.  \n \n\n The breach of the obligation to have a compliance program is sanctioned by a fine of up to EUR 200,000 for physical persons and EUR 1 million for legal persons.  \n"]
["Assuming corporate entities are liable for violating the anticorruption law, is it possible for a corporate entity to reach a deferred prosecution agreement or leniency agreement with the enforcement authorities?","Art. 41-1-2 of the \nFrench Code of Criminal Procedure, initially introduced by the \nSapin 2 law, provides for a kind of deferred prosecution agreement, known as the “\nconvention judiciaire d’intérêt public” (\"\nCJIP\").\nIn essence, in exchange for the payment of a fine, which can reach up to 30 percent of the average turnover of the company over the last three years, and/or of the implementation/remediation of a compliance program under the control of the French Anticorruption Agency, the offense is not prosecuted against the company (or the prosecution ceases) and the conclusion of the agreement does not equate to a declaration of guilt. In particular, the \nCJIP does not appear in the criminal record of the company, although it is made public by a press release.\nA \nCJIP is applicable to a limited number of offenses including corruption, influence peddling, tax fraud, and tax fraud laundering, and may not be concluded with an individual.\n"]