AMF France v. A (false or misleading information, 2010)
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.
In November 2010 the AMF's Commission des sanctions fined the chief executive of an Alternext-listed company 500 euros for consolidated 2007 accounts that wrongly booked 914,000 euros of invoices, treating the error as small and unintentional.
The record
| Agency | AMF (France) |
|---|---|
| Release number | SAN-2010-25 |
| Date filed | 2010-11-04 |
| Date resolved | 2010-11-04 |
| Court | Commission des sanctions (AMF, France) |
| Status | judgment |
| Asset class | equities |
| Venue | Alternext |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | A |
| Techniques | Misleading issuer disclosure |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
- Penalty as published
- €500
What is alleged to have happened
The Commission des sanctions of the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF, France) decided the case on 4 November 2010. The charge was notified in February 2010 to M. A, chairman and chief executive of a company listed on Alternext since 2007 that was later put into liquidation.
The notification alleged that the company's consolidated accounts for 2007, published in 2008, contained information lacking precision, accuracy and sincerity because they improperly booked invoices worth 914,000 euros at 31 December 2007. The AMF had opened its inquiry in May 2009, after the company's shares were suspended and it announced a sharp operating loss for 2008, contrary to earlier forecasts.
The Commission found the accounting entry wrong in part and held that A, who personally handled the company's financial communication, knew or should have known that some of the information did not match reality. In setting the sanction it took into account the small sums, the residual and unintentional nature of the error that the auditors had validated, and its inability seriously to affect the market. It imposed a financial penalty of 500 euros.
This record does not show how much of the 914,000 euros was found to be wrongly booked, whether the decision was appealed, or the identity of the company, which is anonymised. It is an accounts-disclosure case rather than trading or price manipulation, kept because the charge was inaccurate and misleading information to the public.
This library tags the matter as misleading issuer disclosure. 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.
- Misleading issuer disclosure — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
- 2010-11-04 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.
Related actions
Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.