Commenting on judicial agreements of public interest (hereinafter CJIP) negotiated with the National Financial Prosecutor’s Office (PNF) is always delicate due to the little information made public. Of course, the fact that a CJIP has been concluded is made public, but is that really enough?
As a reminder, the investigations carried out by the PNF revealed that the former nuclear giant Areva was involved in a corruption case in Mongolia linked to the obtaining of mining licenses between 2013 and 2017. Following these discoveries , the companies Areva SA and Orano Mining SAS were accused of active corruption of foreign public officials in the context of their activities. The investigation, initiated in 2015 by the Central Office for the Fight against Corruption and Financial and Tax Offenses (OCLCIFF) following a report from TRACFIN, revealed that the company Eurotradia International, a partner of Areva, had paid 1.275 million euros to a Mongolian businessman. These funds were invested in a real estate project majority owned by a senior Mongolian official involved in the awarding of mining licenses.
On December 2, 2024, a CJIP was signed between Areva and the PNF, also integrating the company Orano Mining, given its role as heir to Areva’s mining activities. Indeed, following serious financial difficulties, the Areva company was restructured in 2016.
Nuclear activities have been split into two main entities: Orano for activities linked to the nuclear fuel cycle (including mining) and Framatome for reactors.
Under the terms of this CJIP, the Ornano company has committed to paying the sum of 4.8 million euros and implementing a robust compliance program by allocating a budget of 1.5 million euros to three years, under the supervision of the French Anti-Corruption Agency (AFA).
The conclusion of this CJIP was validated by the president of the Paris Judicial Court on December 9, 2024. Two lessons must, in our opinion, be drawn from it: on the one hand, the application of the transfer of responsibility in matters of CJIP and, on the other hand, that the CJIPs manifest a questionable informational defect.
The application of the transfer of criminal responsibility to the practice of CJIP
Unsurprisingly, the criminal chamber’s consecration of the principle of transfer of criminal liability in the context of mergers-absorptions finds a natural resonance in the practice of the CJIP.
The judgment of May 22, 2024 (Crim. May 22, 2024, n° 23-83.180, Dalloz Actualités, June 7, 2024, obs. N. Monnerie; D. 2024. 1445 note T. Duchesne and E. Le Moulec ; ibid. 2029, obs. G. Roujou de Boubée, C. Ginestet, M.-H. Gozzi, J.-P. Laborde, S. Mirabail and E. Tricoire
Related News :