Individuals subject to AMF investigations, especially in market abuse (*MAR*) cases, including natural persons at residences. Firms and professionals under AMF jurisdiction (e.g., investment firms, brokers) whose employees or premises may be inspected. Senior managers and compliance officers responsible for responding to AMF requests. All market participants handling potentially abusive trades, as non-cooperation escalates to criminal proceedings via Paris Public Prosecutor's Office.

What should firms consider doing?

Immediate training: Conduct firm-wide sessions on AMF inspection protocols, emphasizing mandatory cooperation, document access, and avoiding any delay or refusal (e.g., scripted responses for employee interactions). Policy updates: Revise compliance manuals to explicitly prohibit obstruction, including scenarios like home searches for remote workers; designate 24/7 points of contact for AMF visits. Mock drills: Simulate AMF searches at offices and residences to test response times and access protocols. Legal readiness: Retain counsel experienced in CMF Article L.642-2 matters; pre-approve cooperation clauses in employee contracts. Reporting: Enhance internal surveillance to detect potential market abuse early, reducing investigation risks.

🇫🇷 AMF Enforcement high

Offence of obstructing an AMF investigation sentenced by the Paris Tribunal Correctionnel

Published 17 April 2026 | France

AI Analysis

The Paris Tribunal Correctionnel on 9 April 2026 sentenced an individual to a six-month suspended prison term and €20,000 fine for obstructing an AMF house search during a market abuse investigation, plus €5,000 in AMF procedural costs and €1 in damages. This enforcement action underscores the criminal liability for impeding AMF investigations, reinforcing the regulator's authority and serving as a deterrent against non-cooperation. Compliance teams must prioritize training on full cooperation to avoid similar penalties, as maximum sanctions include up to two years' imprisonment and €300,000 fines under the Monetary and Financial Code.

Key dates

July 2023: - AMF investigators, with judicial police, conducted authorized house search; individual initially refused access
May 2024: - AMF filed report with Paris Public Prosecutor's Office
July 2024: - Paris *Cour d’Appel* upheld search authorization, finding sufficient presumption of market abuse; ordered €5,000 costs to AMF
September 2024: - AMF lodged formal complaint
May 2025: - Paris *Cour d’Appel* validated search and seizure operations; ordered additional €5,000 costs to AMF
9 April 2026: - Paris Tribunal Correctionnel sentenced for obstruction: six-month suspended prison, €20,000 fine, €5,000 procedural costs, €1 damages

Suggested considerations

Immediate training: Conduct firm-wide sessions on AMF inspection protocols, emphasizing mandatory cooperation, document access, and avoiding any delay or refusal (e.g., scripted responses for employee interactions).
Policy updates: Revise compliance manuals to explicitly prohibit obstruction, including scenarios like home searches for remote workers; designate 24/7 points of contact for AMF visits.
Mock drills: Simulate AMF searches at offices and residences to test response times and access protocols.
Legal readiness: Retain counsel experienced in CMF Article L.642-2 matters; pre-approve cooperation clauses in employee contracts.
Reporting: Enhance internal surveillance to detect potential market abuse early, reducing investigation risks.

What changed

This is not a regulatory change but an enforcement precedent affirming existing rules under the Monetary and Financial Code (CMF), specifically Article L.642-2, which criminalizes obstruction of AMF inspections or investigations, including refusing access during authorized house searches. The ruling reiterates that even initial refusal of access constitutes obstruction, with courts upholding AMF operations via prior judicial authorization from the *Juge des Libertés et de la Détention*. It highlights dual administrative and criminal tracks, though a 2022 Constitutional Court decision (QPC no. 2021-831) declared overlapping sanctions under Articles L.621-15 and L.642-2 unconstitutional for violating the necessity principle, limiting double jeopardy-like penalties. https://navacelle.law/sanc

Compliance impact

Urgency: High – This recent (April 2026) criminal conviction demonstrates swift judicial support for AMF actions, with appeals consistently rejected, signaling zero tolerance for even minor obstructions. It elevates risks for individuals and firms in *MAR* probes, potentially leading to personal liability, reputational damage, and cascading sanctions; firms must act preemptively as investigations

Who is affected

Individuals subject to AMF investigations, especially in market abuse (*MAR*) cases, including natural persons at residences.
Firms and professionals under AMF jurisdiction (e.g., investment firms, brokers) whose employees or premises may be inspected.
Senior managers and compliance officers responsible for responding to AMF requests.
All market participants handling potentially abusive trades, as non-cooperation escalates to criminal proceedings via Paris Public Prosecutor's Office.

areas/business-crime-laws-and-regulations/france

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original AMF source before acting. Full disclaimer.

What the AMF said

MAR Offence of obstructing an AMF investigation sentenced by the Paris Tribunal Correctionnel

Published by AMF . Read the full notice at the source for the authoritative text.

Sectors

Capital Markets & Trading

Topics

Market Abuse / Surveillance

Relevant Firm Types

Broker Dealer

View Original on AMF Back to Feed