L’année 2014 a été marquée par deux affaires dans lesquelles de grandes entreprises françaises ont eu à verser des sommes conséquentes au ministère américain de la Justice (DOJ) au titre d’amendes transactionnelles. Les deux grandes entreprises françaises ont peut-être payé pour leurs fautes mais aussi ‒ voire surtout ‒ pour leur mauvaise compréhension d’une nouvelle règle du jeu du « business mondial ». Ces deux affaires illustrent l’apparition d’un nouveau paradigme en droit des affaires, largement inspiré par la culture du droit américain, qu’il est urgent de saisir pour adapter notre droit. Cet enjeu est devenu crucial pour la protection de nos entreprises à l’heure du droit global. Il l’est d’autant plus que le nouveau modèle en construction est en perpétuelle mutation et qu’il est nécessaire de s’adapter rapidement. À cette fin, il convient de détailler les enseignements de ces affaires, non seulement en vue de transformer notre système de justice mais, plus profondément encore, notre culture, et de la mettre ainsi au diapason de notre temps.
In 2014, two major French corporations had to plead guilty and pay huge transactional fines to the US Department of Justice : $9 Billion for BNPP for violations of US economic sanctions and $772 Million for Alstom to resolve Foreign Bribery charges prosecuted.These corporations have paid for their wrong understanding of the global business new rules. Instead of criticizing the US hegemony, we should better learn from those settlements and change our legislation in order to protect our corporations which are already facing global enforcement.French corporations must be fully aware of the importance of discovery and e-discovery proceedings in the United States and Great-Britain ; without this discovery culture, they may leave ‘smoking guns’ behind them difficult to control.Compliance programs are often ‘paper policies’. An effective compliance program implies regular testing of the process. In England, an adequate compliance program may be used as a defense according to the Bribery Act 2010.Self-reporting and cooperation are the key points to understand the US and UK legal system. Suspicions coming to a company’s attention must immediately lead to disclosure to the US officials. ‘Comply’ implies internal investigation and a proactive approach before receiving subpœnas. Cooperation increases the company’s chance of reducing the amount of the penalty or to obtain a declination, the US authorities deciding to drop the charges.The prosecutor plays a key role in the US system. While judicial review of settlements is almost inexistent, there is a trend of some Judges of the US District Court for the District of New York and Columbia to refuse to ‘rubberstamp’ deals when they consider that giving the court’s stamp would lead to approve ‘over-lenient prosecutorial action’.US guilty plea, DPA proceedings are different from French traditions but should be transposed in France in order to build a French credible system of justice.Slowness of judicial procedures in France proves detrimental both to enforcement authorities that lose credibility and to corporations. Moreover, harmonised settlements are a means to help the implementation of the “international” double jeopardy principles to multi-national corporations which face multiple prosecutions for the same facts in various jurisdictions.The French Code of Criminal Procedure contains a provision called a « CRPC » (Comparution sur Reconnaissance Préalable de Culpabilité), sort of “appearance based on recognition of guilt”. However CRPC procedures contain little negotiation and are based on admission of guilt. Such a conviction presents the collateral consequence of excluding corporations convicted from public procurements.This is why the Deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) should be adapted in the French legal system and should imply a judicial review at every stage of the proceedings, as it is already the case in the UK. The Crimes and Court Act 2013 indeed has created a DPA with judicial scrutiny.Such an adaptation of our traditional system requires several conditions. First French judges should be competent in economic matters which is not always the case for the moment because they do not have in-depth knowledge of business, unlike their English or American counterparts who benefit from porosity between the different legal professions. France must also accelerate the flow of its legal elite.Second, and paradoxically, French corporations have a need for credible prosecution in their country as some of them have been dismissed from international calls for tender on the grounds that French law did not provide enough safeguards against corruption.Third, we need a new status for the French prosecutor with the ability to hold negotiations and to interact with their foreign counterparts and white-collar defense lawyers.Fourth, we also need to imagine a “second chance” justice system which can grant credit for prompt disclosure and for a robust compliance program able to detect and prevent bribery.Lastly, France must create an in-house lawyer status to meet the challenge of globalization. General counsels need to enjoy new safeguards including confidentiality in order to meet these new requirements.
