AMF France v. Y, A, B, D and C (insider trading, 2020)
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.
On 13 November 2020 the Commission des sanctions found that three individuals bought shares of the company behind Grand Marnier in February and March 2016 using inside information about a family stake sale likely to lead to a takeover bid, and that two others passed the information on. It fined the five between EUR 25,000 and EUR 100,000 each, EUR 275,000 in total.
The record
| Agency | AMF (France) |
|---|---|
| Release number | SAN-2020-11 |
| Date filed | 2020-11-13 |
| Date resolved | 2020-11-13 |
| Court | Commission des sanctions (AMF, France) |
| Status | judgment |
| Asset class | equities |
| Instruments | Shares of Société des Produits Marnier Lapostolle (Grand Marnier) |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Y ; A ; B ; D ; C |
| Techniques | Insider trading |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
- Penalty as published
- €275k
What is alleged to have happened
The Commission des sanctions of the Autorité des marchés financiers (first section) decided the case on 13 November 2020, after a hearing on 28 September. The AMF had opened its inquiry into the shares in July 2016, and notifications of grievances, with Italian translations for two respondents, were sent in January 2019 to five individuals.
The notifications alleged that information about a planned sale by a family group of a stake in Société des Produits Marnier Lapostolle (SPML), likely to lead to a follow-on bid, was inside information from 26 January 2016. Y, D and A were accused of using it when buying shares on 8 February, 23 and 24 February, and 4 to 11 March 2016. B was accused of passing it to Y, and C of passing it to A.
The Commission found each charge made out. Its findings turned on the timing and unusual character of the purchases, the personal links between the people involved and weak explanations, which together it treated as proving possession and use. It found D's inclusion on an insiders list had not been shown to be known to him, and so did not rely on it.
It fined A EUR 100,000, Y EUR 50,000, B EUR 50,000, C EUR 50,000 and D EUR 25,000, and ordered publication on the AMF website for five years, non-anonymised.
This record does not show the profits made, the identity of the source, or whether the decision was appealed.
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.
- Insider trading — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
- 2020-11-13 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.
Related actions
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 |