AMF France v. Cibox Inter@ctive, AI Investment, A and B (false or misleading information, 2018)

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-2018-08-false-rumors-2018) by email

On 5 July 2018 the Commission des sanctions found that Cibox Inter@ctive and its chief executive gave misleading figures in 2014 financial communications, that Cibox bought back its own shares without a programme and once while holding inside information, and that two shareholders breached disclosure duties. It imposed fines of EUR 200,000, 100,000, 60,000 and 20,000.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

€380k

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 Commission des sanctions of the Autorité des marchés financiers (first section) decided the case on 5 July 2018. The AMF had opened its inquiry in December 2014 into Cibox's financial information and its shares. The decision records that the national financial prosecutor told the AMF in February 2017 that it did not intend to start a criminal prosecution.

The notifications of grievances alleged that Cibox and its chairman and chief executive B published inaccurate, imprecise or misleading information in press releases and half-year reports in 2014 and 2015 (including the size of an error in half-year net result); that Cibox bought its own shares in 2014 and 2015 without a buy-back programme and without telling the AMF or the public; and that it bought shares on 30 July 2015 while holding unpublished half-year results. B and the shareholder A were accused of threshold and director's-dealing declaration failures, and AI Investment of late threshold declarations and of a misleading declaration filed on 17 September 2014.

The Commission found the misleading-information failings made out against Cibox and B, held the share purchases breached the buy-back rules, found insider dealing by Cibox for the 30 July 2015 purchase (made by a person with access to the company's brokerage account), and found the declaration failings made out for B, A and AI Investment, including a declaration that understated the holding and named a different controlling person.

It fined Cibox EUR 200,000, B EUR 100,000, AI Investment EUR 60,000 and A EUR 20,000, and ordered publication on the AMF website for five years in non-anonymised form.

This record does not show how each fine splits across the separate failings, whether every individual grievance was upheld, or whether the decision was appealed. Most of the failings are disclosure breaches, not market-price manipulation.

This library tags the matter as misleading issuer disclosure and 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 2 techniques 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.
• Insider trading — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2018-07-05 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.

• AMF decision page
• Decision (PDF, French)

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

Related actions

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

Record added October 5, 2026. submit a correction.