Market Manipulation. Search

AMF France v. A (insider dealing, 2013)

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-2013-05-insider-trading-2013) by email

On 20 February 2013 the Commission des sanctions found that a director and audit committee member of the listed company Anovo sold 32,604 of its shares in mid-June 2011, days before it disclosed an auditor's going-concern warning, avoiding a loss of about EUR 5,868. It fined him EUR 25,000.

The record

Structured fields for this action, as recorded in our case library.
Agency AMF (France)
Release number SAN-2013-05
Date filed 2013-02-20
Date resolved 2013-02-20
Court Commission des sanctions (AMF, France)
Status judgment
Asset class equities
Instruments Anovo shares
Venue Euronext Paris
Criminal parallel No
Defendants A (individual)
Techniques Insider trading

What was ordered

Civil penalty
—
Disgorgement
—
Prejudgment interest
—
Total relief
—
Alleged gain
—
Penalty as published
€25k

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 of the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) heard the case on 1 February 2013 and decided it on 20 February 2013. The decision is anonymised: the respondent appears as A.

Anovo, a technology services company, was listed on Euronext Paris. In May 2011 its audit committee, including A, was told of a short-term cash need of EUR 1.2 million from June 2011, and its auditors raised doubts over the going-concern basis. On 20 June 2011 Anovo published a release that its half-year financial report included an auditors' observation on going concern. The notification of grievances, received in June 2012, alleged that A used inside information when he sold his shares between 13 and 17 June 2011.

The Commission found that the information on the company's financial difficulties was inside information that A held as a director. It noted that A sold 32,604 shares of the 71,554 he held, between 13 and 17 June, within a week of the announcement, and that his explanation, rebalancing his portfolio and planning a property purchase, was not a compelling circumstance excusing him from the duty to abstain.

It imposed a fine of EUR 25,000, citing his position as director and audit committee member, and ordered publication of the decision.

This record does not show whether the decision was appealed. The loss avoided of about EUR 5,868 is the figure used in the notification of grievances.

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. 2013-02-20 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.