AMF France v. Cybergun, Ingeco, A and B (insider trading, 2017)

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-2017-15-insider-trading-2017) by email

On 21 December 2017 the Commission des sanctions fined the chairman of Cybergun EUR 2,000,000 for selling Cybergun shares through his company and recommending a sale to his insurer while he knew its financial difficulties had worsened, and fined the company and his holding company EUR 100,000 and EUR 70,000 for disclosure failures. It dismissed the misleading-information charges and cleared the second individual.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

€2.2m

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 21 December 2017. The AMF had opened its inquiry into Cybergun's financial disclosure and share trading in October 2014, and notifications of grievances went to four respondents in November 2016.

The notifications alleged that Cybergun failed to tell the public as soon as possible that its financial position had worsened after a planned debt purchase by an investor failed, that its half-year report published on 26 March 2014 gave inaccurate or misleading information, and that the report was late. The individual A, its chairman, was accused of recommending that his insurer sell Cybergun shares and of selling shares for his company Ingeco while holding that inside information. Ingeco was accused of missing or late declarations of its trades. The individual B was accused over the half-year report.

The Commission found that the information became inside information at the latest on 17 February 2014 and was not published until a second conciliation agreement and capital raise on 15 July 2014, which sent the share price down by more than 30 per cent. It found that A sold 76,963 Cybergun shares for Ingeco between 18 and 24 February 2014 and had told the insurer's manager to sell, and rejected the argument that the sales were driven by loan repayments. It also found Cybergun's half-year report late, and Ingeco's declarations missing or late. It rejected the misleading-information charge, holding the note in question expressed a judgement hedged by an uncertainty warning, and so cleared B.

It fined A EUR 2,000,000, Cybergun EUR 100,000 and Ingeco EUR 70,000, put B out of the case, and ordered publication on the AMF website for five years in non-anonymised form.

This record does not show how the Commission split A's fine between the two insider-dealing breaches, or whether the decision was appealed.

This library tags the matter as insider trading (the misleading-information charge was dismissed). 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.

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

Timeline

1. 2017-12-21 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.