What is the AMF in France?

The Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) is France’s financial markets regulator. Its core mission is to protect savings invested in financial products, ensure investors receive proper information, and support the orderly functioning of markets.

In practice, the AMF sets rules for market participants, supervises compliance, and takes enforcement action when it identifies misconduct. For compliance teams, the AMF is a primary authority shaping expectations around governance, conduct, and controls across the French securities industry.

{{snippets-guide}}

Why the AMF matters for compliance teams

The AMF’s work directly affects how regulated firms design controls for customer risk, product distribution, market conduct, and financial crime risk. Even when AML/CTF supervision in France is shared across authorities, the AMF publishes guidance and supervises relevant sectors under its remit, so its expectations should be reflected in policies, training, and monitoring.

AMF scrutiny also has reputational impact because enforcement outcomes, warnings, and public communications influence how counterparties, banks, and clients perceive a firm’s risk profile. For teams responsible for sanctions, PEP, and adverse media screening, AMF priorities can affect the “standard of care” used in audits and regulator interactions.

Comparable regulators internationally

Internationally, the AMF is often compared to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in terms of securities market oversight and investor protection. It is also commonly benchmarked against the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) for conduct supervision, Germany’s BaFin for market oversight within the EU, and FINMA in Switzerland for similar supervision of market participants (with a different legal framework).

At the EU level, firms should also be aware of ESMA (European Securities and Markets Authority), which contributes to supervisory convergence across member states. AMF supervision often aligns with EU rules and ESMA guidance, especially where cross-border services and EU market standards are involved.

Who the AMF supervises

The AMF supervises a broad range of market participants and activities tied to securities markets. This includes oversight connected to financial market functioning, transparency, and investor protection, with monitoring of relevant market infrastructures and intermediaries.

From a compliance standpoint, AMF-supervised populations commonly include asset management firms and investment fund activity, investment services and distribution activity, and areas tied to issuer disclosure and market integrity. The AMF’s supervisory priorities also reference joint or coordinated supervision with the ACPR in certain areas, which is important for firms operating across banking and markets activities.

AMF versus ACPR and where responsibilities split

France has two major regulators that frequently appear in compliance programs: the AMF and the ACPR. The ACPR (attached to the Banque de France) supervises prudential matters and explicitly states it ensures compliance with AML/CTF requirements across the banking and insurance sectors.

The split matters because many financial groups have entities under both regulators. Compliance teams should map obligations and examination expectations accordingly, particularly where customer onboarding, monitoring, and escalation processes need to operate consistently across a group.

The AMF’s role in AML/CTF, sanctions risk, and compliance

Although France’s AML/CTF ecosystem includes multiple authorities, AMF-supervised entities remain subject to AML/CTF requirements under French law and EU frameworks. The AMF issues practical guidance for certain regulated entities, including guidance on politically exposed persons (PEPs) designed to help firms implement enhanced due diligence requirements under the French Monetary and Financial Code.

For sanctions and compliance teams, the key point is operational: firms need controls that can identify and manage sanctions exposure, PEP risk, and adverse media risk in a way that is defensible. Screening and monitoring are not “check-the-box” tasks; they are core controls that support risk-based decisioning, escalation, and reporting.

Politically Exposed Persons: what AMF guidance signals

The AMF has published guidelines on the concept of PEPs, aimed at helping certain regulated entities implement additional due diligence measures required by French law. These guidelines are particularly relevant for portfolio asset management companies and other supervised actors referenced in the document.

For compliance teams, this guidance reinforces practical expectations: you need a reliable way to identify PEPs, apply enhanced review, document decisions, and keep records updated over time. It also implies that firms should be able to explain how PEP screening results feed into risk scoring, approvals, and ongoing monitoring.

Sanctions and broader financial crime risk

Sanctions compliance in France is shaped by UN and EU measures, as well as national implementation mechanisms. Firms with cross-border exposure should assume sanctions risk can surface through clients, counterparties, investments, fund subscriptions/redemptions, and payment flows connected to regulated activity.

Even when sanctions administration is not solely “owned” by the AMF, AMF-supervised firms are expected to manage these risks in line with their legal obligations and supervisory expectations. In practice, this means screening, escalation, and governance should be robust enough to withstand both internal audit and regulator review.

Enforcement powers and what they mean for compliance

The AMF has a formal mechanism to impose sanctions through its Enforcement Committee. The AMF explains that the Enforcement Committee exercises the power to impose sanctions and provides information on the sanction procedure and who can be sanctioned.

For compliance teams, enforcement powers translate into real operational pressure: controls must work in practice, not only on paper. Weaknesses in governance, monitoring, or escalation can become enforcement issues, particularly where they contribute to investor harm or market integrity concerns.

What AMF enforcement tends to focus on

The AMF’s enforcement activity has historically covered breaches connected to the Monetary and Financial Code and the AMF’s General Regulation, including professional obligations of regulated entities. Commentary on AMF enforcement history highlights the role of the Enforcement Committee since the early 2000s and the types of breaches pursued.

In practical compliance terms, this is a reminder that “conduct” issues and “financial crime” issues are often linked. Poor controls can create channels for abusive practices, misleading communications, or failures to detect suspicious behavior; each can raise regulator concerns.

Why AMF oversight matters for sanctions, PEP, and adverse media screening

Screening is a control, not a one-time check

Sanctions and PEP screening are most effective when treated as lifecycle controls: onboarding, periodic review, and event-driven review. AMF PEP guidance points firms toward enhanced due diligence obligations and supports a structured approach to identifying and managing higher-risk relationships.

Adverse media screening fits naturally into that same control framework because it can reveal indicators of corruption, fraud, market misconduct, or other behaviors that increase risk. For regulated firms, adverse media signals can inform escalation, enhanced monitoring, or decisions to exit a relationship, provided the process is consistent and well documented.

Governance and escalation expectations

Compliance teams should expect scrutiny of how alerts are handled, who makes decisions, and how decisions are evidenced. This includes clear ownership for triage, documented escalation thresholds, and independent oversight where required by governance models.

A common regulator concern across jurisdictions is “process drift,” where tuning changes, staffing constraints, or inconsistent investigation notes degrade control quality over time. Aligning screening governance with AMF expectations helps reduce that risk, especially for high-volume environments like asset management distribution or investment services operations.

Data quality and auditability

Screening outcomes are only as reliable as the data being screened. For compliance teams, this means ensuring customer and counterparty data is complete, consistently formatted, and updated when circumstances change.

Auditability also matters because regulators and auditors need to understand “why” a decision was made. A defensible program keeps clear records of match rationale, investigation steps, applied risk factors, and approvals; this is particularly important for PEP decisions and sanctions-related escalations.

Practical takeaways for compliance teams working with AMF-regulated entities

Start by building a clear regulatory map of which legal entities are supervised by the AMF, which are supervised by the ACPR, and where shared obligations apply. This prevents gaps in training, monitoring coverage, and governance responsibilities.

Next, align screening controls to the firm’s real risk exposure, then document the operating model clearly. Ensure that sanctions screening, PEP screening, and adverse media workflows connect to investigations, escalation, and reporting decisions in a way that is consistent, repeatable, and measurable.

Conclusion

The AMF is a central pillar of France’s market regulation, with a mandate focused on investor protection, market integrity, and effective supervision of key market participants. For compliance teams, AMF expectations show up in governance, controls, and enforcement risk, especially where weaknesses could affect clients, markets, or the integrity of regulated activity.

A strong approach to sanctions, PEP, and adverse media screening helps AMF-supervised firms identify and manage higher-risk relationships, support defensible decisions, and maintain trust with regulators and counterparties. When controls are designed for auditability and operated consistently, firms are better positioned to withstand scrutiny and reduce both regulatory and reputational risk. 

sanctions.io is a highly reliable and cost-effective solution for real-time screening. AI-powered and with an enterprise-grade API with 99.99% uptime are reasons why customers globally trust us with their compliance efforts and sanctions screening needs.

‍

To learn more about how our sanctions, PEP, and criminal watchlist screening service can support your organisation's compliance program: Book a free Discovery Call.

‍

We also encourage you to take advantage of our free 7-day trial to get started with your sanctions and AML screening (no credit card is required).

‍