Forum. The draft law on tax evasion is discussed in the national Assembly in second reading on Monday 17 September. In a context where tax evasion and tax avoidance seem more and more unbearable to the citizens and where significant reductions in taxes are granted to companies, the government wants to show his firmness against the fraudsters.
The discussions around the “lock Bercy” – the monopoly of the tax authority on the transmission of cases of fraud to justice, have largely occupied the public debate ; the bill is expected to propose a development quite satisfactory for this device by entering criteria that are designed to ensure that frauds of the most serious are systematically transmitted to the judicial authority.
But what logic is there to soften the “lock de Bercy” to make more effective the fight against fraud if it is created, at the same time, a procedure that allows the ” big ” scammers settle with the law and negotiate their penalty will be guilty ?
A new system of justice to a two speed
Introduced in the French criminal law by the law known as the Fir II for corruption, the convention judicial of public interest (CJIP) is likely to provide for the payment of a fine to a legal person in issue, in exchange for ending prosecution, without it being established for the recognition of guilt for the undertaking concerned.
Upon the adoption of the Sapin law II, many NGOS had issued a negative opinion to the establishment of this mechanism, taking the view that the facts of corruption cover complex realities and a gravity too high to escape the criminal trial.
The same goes for the offences of tax evasion.
The CJIP introduced a new system of two tiered justice system, where tax evaders would be dealt with differently…
