Dec. 31, 2020
Without warning neither the people who publish, nor the Internet users who react to their activity of publishing,
the magazine Compliances carried out a manual survey of people active on Linkedin on the subject of COMPLIANCE
this resulted in the following table, presented as the "Top 10 influencers" in this area:
It emerges from this initiative taken by a third party, on a third professional network, that MAFR is by far the first personality in this ranking,
Not just when it comes to people who follow the posts
But still in terms of number of publications and above all of interactions generated by them.
N.B .: the information on the creation of the Compliance Legal Design collection had not yet been made on December 11, 2020 on LinkedIn.
Updated: Dec. 24, 2020 (Initial publication: July 15, 2020)
This Working Paper has been the basis for the first conference of the two conferences in the colloquium in Toulouse (France) under the scientific direction of Lucien Rapp, about Les incitations, outils de la Compliance ("Incitations, as Compliance Tools"), on December 12, 2019, the first one about The sanction as incitation and the second one about Incitations and Compliance Law (synthesis of this colloquium).
Summary and Introduction of this Working Paper: At first glance, Compliance and Incentives appear to be totally opposite. For two major reasons. In the first place, because the sanctions have a central place in the Law of Compliance and the incentives suppose an absence of constraint on the operators. Secondly, because the incentives are linked to self-regulation and that Compliance Law assumes a strong presence of public authorities. Taking the first reason, one should choose: either Compliance or Incentives! Either the effectiveness of one or the effectiveness of the others; either the techniques of one or the techniques of others; either the philosophy of one or the philosophy of the others. Resign oneself to the loss that such a necessary choice would involve. But to put the terms thus amounts to think poorly about the situations and reduce the fields of the solutions which they call for. If we take a rich definition of Compliance Law, it is possible on the contrary to articulate Compliance and Incentives. From this perspective, sanctions can no longer become what blocks the use of incentives but, on the contrary, what constitutes them. Even more, the coupling between Incentives and the requirements of Compliance Law must be strongly encouraged, as soon as the public authorities supervise in Ex Ante all the initiatives taken by the "crucial operators".
This working document deals with the first issue!footnote-2045. Indeed, the so-called incentive theory targets mechanisms that do not directly use coercion. They would therefore have little place in Compliance Law. But Compliance seems saturated with sanction procedures. We can even say that it seems to put them at the center, the public authorities presenting the number of sanctions as a sign of success, while the companies seem obsessed with their prospects, the two concerns ending in such a strange convergence that are the D.P.O...
An honest observer can only feel immediately uneasy. Indeed, he can only raise the definition of the sanction as a "constraint" triggered Ex Post, at the very heart of Compliance Law which is presented as a set of Ex Ante mechanisms. Based on this contradiction in terms, should we give up the association and think that it would be wrong against the spirit to think of the sanction as an incentive?
It is undoubtedly in this connection that one perceives most clearly the clash of two cultures, which do not communicate, while technically they apply to the same situations. Indeed, because Compliance was firstly designed by Finance, everything is a tool for it. Therefore, the tendancy to think about the sanction only as an incentive is very strong in Compliance Law. It manifests itself continuously and will not stop (I). But whatever the reasons are to conceive it this way, the principles of the Rule of Law cannot disappear and if we do not want them to be erased, then they must be articulated (II). It’s an essential adjustment.
This is why we can literally say that Compliance has set Criminal Law on fire by its conception, logical but closed in on itself, of sanctions as simple incentives. For Law to remain, however, it is necessary to hold a very firm definition of Compliance Law centered on its Monumental Goal, which is the protection of the person.
Updated: Dec. 21, 2020 (Initial publication: Dec. 11, 2019)
This working document serves as the basis for two conference given in the symposium made under the direction of Lucien Rapp, Les incitations, outils de la Compliance ("Incitations: Compliance Tools").
Référence : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Compliance et Incitations : un couple à propulser, in Faculté de droit de l'Université Toulouse-Capitole, et Journal of Regulation & Compliance (JoRC),Les incitations, outils de la Compliance, 12 décembre 2019, Toulouse.
This Working Paper has been the basis for two conferences in the colloquium in Toulouse (France) under the scientific direction of Lucien Rapp, about Les incitations, outils de la Compliance ("Incitations, as Compliance Tools"), on December 12, 2019, the first one about The sanction as incitation and the second one about Incitations and Compliance Law (synthesis of this colloquium). sur le thème de la sanction comme incitation, la seconde en synthèse de ce colloque sur
Summary of this Working Paper: Compliance and Incentives appear at first glance to be totally opposite. Not only because sanctions are at the heart of Compliance and that sanction is associated with constraint while incentive is associated with non-constrained!footnote-2044, but also because incentives are linked to self-regulation and that Compliance Law requires a strong presence of public authorities. Thus, one should choose: either Compliance or Incentives! Either the effectiveness of one or the effectiveness of the others; either the techniques of one, or the techniques of others; either the philosophy of one or the philosophy of the others. Resign yourself to the waste that such a necessary choice would involve. But putting the terms thus is thinking poorly about the situations and reducing the fields of the solutions which they call for. If we take a rich definition of Compliance Law, we can on the contrary articulate Compliance and Incentives.
To do this, the concept of “incentive Compliance” should be developed. This concept is not only appropriate, but it is necessary in a new conception of Sovereignty. For example for the digital Europe.
Read the developments below.
Dec. 9, 2020
Teachings : Generall Regulatory law
Au sens juridique, la responsabilité désigne le fait de "répondre", mais au sens commun la responsabilité désigne le fait d'avoir du pouvoir et de l'exercer dans les marges que donne la liberté d'action. Les deux sens doivent converger dans un système libéral.
Puisqu'il a été montré que les Régulateurs sont les maîtres des secteurs, ils seraient donc logiques qu'ils sont responsables. Mais, c'est encore un point commun qu'ils ont avec les juges, parce qu'ils sont consubstantiellement indépendants, ils ne peuvent pas voir leur responsabilité engagées. Cependant le droit positif a posé le principe de la Responsabilité de l'Etat du fait de leur Autorités de Régulation, tandis que leur irresponsabilité politique comparée à l'ampleur de leurs pouvoirs a souvent était le ferment de leur contestation.
Par ailleurs, le mécanisme général de la responsabilité est utilisé, notamment parce que les mécanismes du Droit de la Régulation sont eux-mêmes défaillants. En effet, comme l'a montré Alain Supiot, l'on peut "prendre la responsabilité au sérieux" et, si l'on applique cette perspective plus particulièrement à l'espace numérique, cela permettra de pallier les défaillances de la Régulation publique elle-même. En effet, il existe des sortes de "trous noirs régulatoires", dont relève encore notamment le numérique.
Mais cette violence de la responsabilité ainsi conçue ne doit pas s'appliquer à tous les opérateurs économiques. En effet, cette responsabilité "proactive" qui dépasse le mécanisme de l'Ex Post vers l'Ex Ante ne doit s'appliquer qu'aux opérateurs régulés, éventuellement aux "opérateurs cruciaux, pour qu'à travers leur personne, les buts de la régulation soient atteints (mécanisme de compliance). Les opérateurs ordinaires doivent demeurer dans un mécanisme Ex Post, la responsabilité ne devant pas engendrer des "devoirs généraux de prise en charge d'autrui", car l'entreprise ordinaire n'est pas de même nature que l'État.
D'une façon spécifique et au besoin :
D'une façon plus générale et au besoin :
Consulter ci-dessous la bibliographie spécifique à cette leçon portant sur la Responsabilité et la Régulation:
Updated: Dec. 3, 2020 (Initial publication: July 15, 2020)
Full Reference : Frison-Roche, M.-A., Rights, primary and natural Compliance Tools, Working Paper, July 2020.
This Working paper is the basis for an article published in the collective book Compliance Tools .
There was a time when Regulatory techniques were above all only calculations of the best tarifications, taken up by monopolistic companies, while Compliance techniques were only obedience to all rules governing us. All this could therefore only be business of abacus and badine, used by engineers and consisted only of mechanical reflexes of "conformity" to all kinds of rules with the corset ensuring that everyone is bent in front of them!footnote-1946. In the perspective of a Regulation and Compliance thus conceived, that is to say effective, it would not be necessary to insert prerogatives for people, since these could only be sources of inefficiency, of cost. and protest, where the order would come from figures set in advance and controlled processes.
Systems have since evolved to integrate these prerogatives of each person: rights. Is this evolution really acquired? Maybe more effectively in Regulation Law than in its extension which is Compliance Law. This may be surprising since Compliance Law, in that it extends Regulatory Law in enterprises should, on the contrary, promote rights by meeting the enterprise, which is a group of people ....!footnote-1986 . But the modern reluctance to define the enterprise (and the company) as a group of people and the preference given to a definition of the company (and the enterprise) as an "asset", a "good" of which investors would be the owners, maybe explains the sidelining of rights not only in Regulatory Law but also in Compliance Law even though it is being deployed in the space of the enterprise!footnote-1987.
In addition, if Regulation has long been the subject of a branch of Law in which rights have full place, the presentation of Compliance as "conformity", that is to say the proven assurance of obedience to all the applicable rules, leaves no space for the prerogatives of people, which appear rather as resistance to the obedience that would be expected of them. There again, the expectation of what would be a good ratio of conformity between behaviors and prescriptions would be obtained by a "design", data processing being the new form of calculation, improved by precision tools where the being human is not required!footnote-1989. His fallibility and the little confidence which one can place in him leads even to exclude the people and to conceive Compliance system between machines, not only to alert of the failures, but also to manufacture the "regulations" and to connect those. here, in a "regulatory fabric" without a jump stitch, entirely enveloping human beings!footnote-1990.
It would therefore be with regret, and probably because some constitutional jurisdictions still attach some value to fundamental rights that the systems of "conformity" of behavior to the rules make some room for the prerogatives of people, their more essential rights. It is sometimes said that this is part of the cost. It would therefore be as by "forcing" that rights would exist in Compliance systems, a kind of price that the effectiveness of Compliance must pay as a tribute to the Rule of Law principle!footnote-1991.
If in a poor definition Compliance is conceived in this only "conformity", leading to a landscape in which the behaviors of the people adjust to the rules governing the situations, Compliance being only the most "effective way" to ensure the application of the rules, in a mechanical perspective of Law, then it would effectively be necessary to reduce the prerogatives of people to a minimal part, because any "additional cost" is intended to disappear, even if it is produced here by constitutional requirements. In the looming battle between the effectiveness of the application of rules and the concern for the legal prerogatives of people who should above all obey and not claim their rights, especially their right not to obey , or their right to keep secret in Compliance techniques which is based on the centralization of information, the effectiveness of efficiency could only, by the very power of this tautology, prevail!footnote-1988...
The defeat would not be total, however, collaboration would still be possible and active between people availing themselves of their rights and Compliance Law. Indeed, in many respects, if rights have been recognized in Compliance systems, it is not only because Compliance Law, like any branch of Law, can only be deployed with respect for fundamental rights. kept by fundamental legal texts, but also because of the effectiveness of rights as " Compliance Tools".
Indeed, because they constitute a very effective "tool" to ensure the entire functioning of a system whose goals are so difficult to achieve, because every effort must be made to achieve these goals, the public authorities not only rely on the power of crucial operators, but also distribute prerogatives to people who, thus encouraged, activate the Compliance system and participate in the achievement of the "monumental goals". Rights can prove to be the most effective tools to effectively achieve the goals set, to such an extent that they can be considered as "primary tools" (I).
But it is necessary to be more ambitious, even to reverse the perspective. Indeed because all the Monumental Goals by which Compliance Law is defined can be reduced to the protection of people, that is to say to the effectiveness of their prerogatives, by a mirror effect between rights. given by Law to persons and the rights which constitute the very purpose of all Compliance Law, in particular the protection of all human beings, even if they are in a situation of great weakness, rights become a "natural tool" of Compliance Law (II).
Rights are the Compliance Law future.
Dec. 2, 2020
Editorial responsibilities : Direction de la collection "Droit et Économie", L.G.D.J. - Lextenso éditions (30)
Full reference: Racine, J.-B. (ed.), Le droit économique au XXIe siècle. Notions et enjeux, Coll. Droit & Economie, LGDJ-Lextenso, 2020, 726 p.
Summary of the book : Economic Law has not been so important than today, at a time of phenomenal changes in our societies. Economics are everywhere and Law is directly requested, to accompany, frame and finalize economics. Economic Law, which remain without definition, must be perceived now as a fundamental understanding tool of the realities of our time. This book proposes both to take stock of what Economic Law is at the start of the XXIst century and to give prospective analysis of what it could be in the years to come. It has been designed as a collective research based on 30 key-words (like the firm, the market, globalization, artificial intelligence). Each author has taken a notion by placing it in a logic of Economic Law. It is therefore on a transversal and thematic analysis that the book is based.
Economic Law is an open house. While it seeks diverse schools of thought, it gives pride of place to diversity. The book has been realized in this spirit. If it gather many authors from Nice's school, it is also open to other perspectives and opinions. Economic Law, through its research topics and analysis methods is in constant change. This research shows that economics is a topic which crosses every legal branches, beyond business Law.
The book is aimed at students wishing to familiarize themselves with Economic Law process, researchers intending to explore Economic Law themes in depth, and also practitioners who are looking for keys to understanding the current issues raised by the relationship between Law and Economics.
List of authors:
Read the table of contents (in French)
Read Jean-Baptiste Racine's introductive article (in French)
Read Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's article (in French) and read the bilingual working paper on which this article is based.
Dec. 2, 2020
Teachings : Compliance Law
Imaginons une scène comme celle-ci :
Albert est votre meilleur ami. Il est encore étudiant. Le Droit, c’est sa passion.
Il suit à titre principal les cours donnés par l’Ecole de l’Innovation et du Savoir Ouvert, dans la Majeure qui porte sur question de l’Interdépendance Autopoïétique des systèmes référentiels globalisés. Cette école a obtenu que le Mastère dont il aura le titre en juin de l’année prochaine en passant un oral écrit lui permette de se présenter à l’examen pour devenir avocat.
Comme Albert est très sérieux, il travaille le mardi et le jeudi matin dans un cabinet d’avocat.
Cela lui plaît beaucoup.
D’autant plus qu’il a fait la connaissance de Gustave, qui est Avocat depuis 3 ans déjà et qui lui raconte plein d’histoires, d’où il résulte toujours qu’il a gagné, dans des dossiers pourtant bien difficiles, mais il maîtrise l’art de convaincre les jurés et le Code de procédure pénale « n’a plus de secret pour lui ». C’est ce qu’il lui raconte pendant le déjeuner qu’ils prennent souvent ensemble.
Ils ne déjeunent pas avec Maître Constant, qui est l’un des associés fondateurs du cabinet. Il est beaucoup trop important. D’ailleurs il n’est jamais disponible, car il passe son temps en réunion, en avion, en conférence ou bien on ne sait pas où il est … La vie des avocats, cela a ses secrets, aussi.
Au cours d’un déjeuner, Gustave semble manquer d’appétit. Lui toujours si content de lui qu’il dévore toujours le plat du jour… Il raconte à Albert qu’il avait trouvé un client en or, Damien ! Un peu voyant dans ses costumes, peut-être, mais tout le monde ne peut pas avoir l’élégance discrète des costumes bleu nuit de Maître Constant…. Damien lui a indiqué ce matin qu’il allait transférer de l’argent pour acheter les douaniers d’un port lointain et qu’il convenait, par sécurité juridique, que ces fonds passent par un compte CARPA, le sien. Gustave, encore frais de ses cours, avait bondi et dans un élan admirable, en faisant de grands gestes, - pour un peu il aurait pris sa robe qui était sur le porte-manteau -, avait évoqué Domat, Pothier, Cicéron, Motulsky, Kelsen, Thucydide ; de guerre lasse, et ne serait-ce que pour qu’il se taise, Damien avait déclaré ne plus vouloir rien faire, afin que tous ces individus ne déboulent pas chez lui…
Il est vrai que Damien n’était peut-être pas quelqu’un de très recommandable… Le Droit contraint-il pour autant Gustave, ou Albert, à alerter les autorités ?
Car des clients peu recommandables, les cabinets d’avocats en ont parfois. Mais choisit-on vraiment ses clients ? Par exemple, Maître Constant a reçu hier Olivia qui lui a exposé avoir transféré des informations défense d’un service, pourtant sécurisé où elle est compliance officer, vers un service administratif d’un pays lointain, en échange de quoi à la fois elle dispose de beaucoup d’argent frais, mais elle craint aussi pour sa vie.
Elle est venue demander à Maître Constant ce qui va se passer si la justice française lui demande des comptes avant qu’elle ne trouve refuge dans un autre pays lointain.
Maître Constant demande à Gustave, qui demande à Albert, qui vous demande, s’il doit raconter tout cela aux autorités publiques, ou s’il peut le faire.
Comme vous êtes l’ami d’Albert, vous allez l’aider à répondre à tout cela.
Dec. 2, 2020
Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., La Compliance, in Racine, J.-B. (ed.), Le droit économique au XXIe siècle. Notions et enjeux, Coll. Droit & Economie, LGDJ-Lextenso, 2020, pp. 97-108