Market Manipulation. Search

AMF France v. B, A, X, C, D, E and F (insider trading, 2008)

Judgment entered

Checked against the primary document on October 5, 2026. The library's summary, tags and figures for this record were compared with the regulator's own document by an AI model (Claude) following written instructions, in a single reading of the French decision; an independent second reading of 60 of the AMF records agreed on every field for 54 and on the core fields for 59. No lawyer has reviewed them. A checked record can still contain errors, and checked does not mean endorsed. See how we check records or report a correction.

Report an error in this record (amf-fr-san-2009-13-insider-trading-2008) by email

On 11 December 2008 the Commission des sanctions found that seven relatives, friends and an executive linked to the founders of an IT infrastructure company listed on Alternext had bought shares or passed on information in June and July 2006, before the founders' sale of their stake. It imposed penalties of EUR 30,000 to EUR 130,000, EUR 345,000 in all.

The record

Structured fields for this action, as recorded in our case library.
Agency AMF (France)
Release number SAN-2009-13
Date filed 2008-12-11
Date resolved 2008-12-11
Court Commission des sanctions (AMF, France)
Status judgment
Asset class equities
Venue Euronext Alternext
Criminal parallel No
Defendants B (individual) ; A (individual) ; X (company managed by A) (entity) ; C (individual) ; D (individual) ; E (individual) ; F (individual)
Techniques Insider trading

What was ordered

Civil penalty
—
Disgorgement
—
Prejudgment interest
—
Total relief
—
Alleged gain
—
Penalty as published
€345k

A dash means the release did not state a figure we could extract, not that the figure is zero. Penalty and disgorgement are stored separately so aggregates across the library do not double-count the same dollars. This regulator states penalties in EUR. The figure is recorded as published and is not converted, so it does not appear in the USD totals or medians used elsewhere on this site.

What is alleged to have happened

The first section of the Commission des sanctions decided this matter on 11 December 2008, after an investigation opened in November 2006 and notifications of grievances sent on 19 December 2007. The issuer, called Y, designs and integrates IT and telecoms infrastructure and traded on Alternext. Its majority shareholders, who held about 74.7 per cent, asked an M&A adviser in April 2006 to find a buyer and on 27 July 2006 signed a sale at EUR 41.97 a share, announced the next day.

The information in question was the planned sale of the majority stake. The AMF alleged that B, a director and brother of the founder, bought 2,000 shares on 28 June 2006 and told his mother-in-law A; that A, her company X, her relatives D, E and F and a Y subsidiary's sales manager C had bought shares or passed on the information between 28 June and 20 July 2006.

The Commission found the breaches established against all seven. B bought at EUR 27.50 and made a gain of EUR 28,940; A made EUR 12,287 and gained EUR 2,086 for her son; company X made EUR 13,696; E EUR 12,245; F EUR 12,358; C EUR 16,595. The Commission found D had passed on the information. For C, it noted his position in the group could give access to sale plans, that the founder visited his subsidiary on 12 July and that C gave instructions the next day.

It imposed EUR 70,000 on B for using the information and EUR 60,000 for passing it on, EUR 30,000 on A, EUR 30,000 on X, EUR 60,000 on D, EUR 30,000 on E, EUR 30,000 on F and EUR 35,000 on C (EUR 345,000 in all).

This record does not show whether the decision was appealed.

This library tags the matter as insider trading. The tagging is ours, not the regulator’s.

For the regulator’s own account of the facts, read the primary document linked above. This page deliberately summarises the structured record rather than reproducing the decision.

What technique is this, and how does it work?

This action is tagged with one technique in our taxonomy. The tagging is ours: regulators charge statutory provisions, not technique names, so the mapping is an editorial judgement described in our editorial policy.

Timeline

  1. 2008-12-11 Commission des sanctions decision

Primary documents

Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.

The linked release is published by the issuing regulator under its own terms. Our summary and narrative above are our own writing.

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Action Agency Filed Technique Penalty Status
SEC v. Trijya Vakil and Neeraj Visen (insider trading, 2026) SEC 2026-09-04 Insider Trading $109k settled
CFTC v. Gabriel Perez (insider trading, 2026) CFTC 2026-08-28 Insider Trading $65k judgment
SEC v. Gavin Wolfe and others (insider trading, 2026) SEC 2026-08-21 Insider Trading — filed
SEC v. Jesse R. Mitchell (insider trading, 2026) SEC 2026-08-21 Insider Trading — filed
SEBI v. Arun Kumar Somani and others (insider trading review, Indian Oil Corporation, 2026) SEBI (India) 2026-08-13 Insider Trading — dismissed
SEC v. Benjamin Tesfaye (insider trading, 2026) SEC 2026-08-11 Insider Trading $18.7k settled

Record added October 5, 2026. submit a correction.