The AMF (Financial Markets Authority) and market abuse

Extract

[...] Besides, they have recently been a reform of market abuse in 2014. it concerns both a directive for criminal sanctions and a regulation for administrative sanctions. The articulation of these two texts is fairly complex, the European regulation provides that member states may have the two sanctions, but they may provide criminal sanctions only. The European directive provides that member state should ensure the imposition of criminal and administration sanctions that do not lead to the breach of ne bis in idem. [...]

[...] There are 3 criteria in Engel case in 1976 whether there are or not a criminal charge: the legal classification of the offense in the national law the real nature of the offense the degree of severity of the penalty The ESHR has specified that the 2nd and 3rd criteria are automatic and not necessarily cumulated. This is not excluded a cumulated approach. The legal classification on the national law is not sufficient. Actually, there is no doubt that AMF administrative sanctions are of a criminal nature within the meaning of the ECHR. [...]

[...] It brings an end to double jeopardy in the case of market abuse. The 1st thing is that the Ccons doesn't refer to ne bis in idem. This rule doesn't have a constitutional value in French law. More than that, the Ccons reiterate the fact that the principal that the law must prescribe the penalties that are strictly and evidently necessary. The only limit is the principle of proportionality. Nevertheless, about market abuse provision in the French monetary and financial code, the Ccons reach a similar result that the ECHR on the Grande Stevens case. [...]

[...] Secondly, there are several approaches to decide whether the offenses were the same. In 2009, in the case Zolotoukhine against Russia. The court decided to cut an end to these differencing. The court took the view that art 4 of protocol 7 must be understood as prohibiting prosecution or trial of a second offense. In so far as its rises from identical facts or at least facts that are substantially the same. Lastly, judges must see whether there is a duplication of proceeding. [...]

[...] They pronounced fines or jail sanctions. In the French monetary and financial law, there are executive directive listed companies and individuals who in the course of their business obtain inside information. Information will concern the prospect or the situation of an unsure. These persons incurred a penalty of two years' imprisonment, and they also incurred a fine of 1,5 million euros or up to 10 times the amount of the profit realized. The fine shall never be less than the amount of the sale profit. [...]