Sophisticated financial theft, by rich and educated operators, often subject to fiduciary obligations or company mandates, should be more severely punished as shoplifting: heavy fines should be considered against these crimes but not only.
But the reality seems otherwise, not only in France.
Remind that that any class group action is still excluded in financial matters in France.
Priority has long be given to the AMF Mediation office, an active and useful process, remains one of the most practical way for partial indemnification but acts not as deterrent to discourage abuse : actually the mediation office, because of its confidentiality protects the misleading issuer and by definition compensate only partly the loss and a small par of the victims.
The Justice Dept. Courts offer a lengthy expensive possibility for redress bu the main interested parties , namely the insitutional sharehodlesr do not fine any complain….aside of smal invesors As a result cases like Vivendi Universal Natixis, or Dexia offered no redress…
The decriminalization of the French company law or the benefit of the CEOs and Directors as well as a growing laxity in the area of regulated agreements observed in recent years reinforce this feeling of injustice …
The third route is the AMF Sanction Commission but only against market abuses , i.e. demonstrated market manipulation, insider tradingor misleading information…The AMF Sanction Commission brings expertise on sophisticated operations on complex instruments that are rarely in the usual practice of the general criminal courts.
The reality is that it is the AMF Sanction Commission has effectively more punished here than the Courts did.
With an average of 40 investigations opened per year, the AMF sanctions have reached 117 million euros,over the last ten years over the last ten years against less than 3 million charged by the criminal courts. The recent granting to the Chairman of AMF of the right to appeal the decisions of the Sanction Commission has also reinforced the repressive device allowing it to appeal on too lenientdécisions.
We consider that the criminal acts are too restricted in their legal definition, and often escape punishment. This applies to situations that are not formally defined as market offenses but seen in perspective constitute serious guiltymisappropriation. Thus the combination of market information failures , misleading sattetments, accounting options, and delicacy with the statutory auditing of regulated agreements often create perfect scams that only a financial approach of the case can reveal.
We at Proxinvest consider that the legal plundering of the shareholders assets has become the latest sport “à la mode”.
Any reform must ensure that the AMF Sanction Commission whose members areto a third professional magistrates become even more independent of market powers and be better armed to punish big players. It is necessary that the representatives of small and insitutional investors, victims with little protection, be represented at the AMF Sanction Commission.
It is also necessary as the class action is lacking in the financial sector, that the the AMF Mediation procedure be reformed reviewed in a manner most favorable to the non-initiated or unidentified victims. The current economy this confidential procedure which was certainly improved, is still too favorable to offenders and brings no positive effect for many, sometimes for the vast majority of the victims.
Investors need reform, they need also to act.
For now, they would be best advised in writing to their market authorities against any critical behaviour they might witness. On the Proxinvest site you can see letters written to the AMF and to the companies concerned including Total, Vivendi, Saniofi, Alstom, Orange, Renault and soon Carrefour…
25 May 2015
