AMF France v. A, B, C, Exane SA and Petercam SA (marking the close, 2015)

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-2015-08-marking-the-close-2015) by email

In April 2015 the AMF Commission des sanctions sanctioned two brokers and three individuals for year-end purchases of Naturex and SIPH shares on 30 December 2011 that were alleged to fix the closing price at an abnormal level, with penalties totalling 545,000 euros.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

€545k

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 2nd section of the Commission des sanctions decided this case on 16 April 2015. The AMF's board had sent notifications of grievances on 19 August 2013 to the brokers Exane SA and Petercam SA and to three individuals, A and C (sales traders at Exane and Petercam) and B (manager of a Petercam fund).

All five were accused of manipulating the prices of the shares of Naturex and SIPH through purchases on 30 December 2011, the last trading day of the year, which allegedly set the closing price at an abnormal level. Exane was also accused of lacking procedures to detect manipulative interventions and of failing to report suspicious orders, and A of not alerting compliance to the potentially manipulative buy orders.

The Commission sanctioned all five. It imposed financial penalties of 150,000 euros on Exane, 300,000 euros on Petercam, 25,000 euros on A, 40,000 euros on B and 30,000 euros on C, a total of 545,000 euros.

The record does not show how the Commission measured the price effect, and it does not show whether any respondent appealed.

This library tags the matter as marking the close. 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.

• Marking the close — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2015-04-16 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.