AMF France v. Y, M. A and Banque X (insider trading, 2021)

Dismissed

✓ 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-2021-15-insider-trading-2021) by email

In August 2021 the Commission des sanctions cleared a holding company, its controlling figure and a private bank of insider dealing and of a failure to report suspicious orders around Safran's planned takeover of Zodiac Aerospace. It held that the information became inside information only on 16 December 2016, after the purchases had been made.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

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.

What is alleged to have happened

The Commission des sanctions of the AMF, first section, heard the matter on 2 July 2021 and decided it on 3 August 2021. The respondents are published as SAS Y, M. A and Banque X.

The notifications of grievances alleged that the planned acquisition of Zodiac Aerospace by Safran was inside information from 17 November 2016 at the latest. They charged M. A, who chaired the Zodiac supervisory board, and Y with using it when Y bought 195,000 Zodiac shares between 24 November and 5 December 2016, and charged the bank with failing to report suspicious operations.

The Commission examined when the information became precise and found that it did so on 16 December 2016, not on 17 November. Because the purchases came before that date, it held that they were not insider dealing, and it found no ground for the bank to have reported them as suspicious. It remarked that M. A's conduct showed little regard for company-law rules, but that this was not the charge before it.

The Commission put all three respondents out of the case (mise hors de cause) and imposed no fine. It ordered the decision published without anonymisation.

This record is therefore a dismissal: the charges were rejected. It does not show whether the AMF college appealed, and it says nothing of the facts of the takeover beyond what the Commission needed to date the information.

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

1. 2021-08-03 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.