Estimated reading time (in minutes)
The judge responded to a request for cancellation of a report of visit and seizure carried out by agents of the tax administration of a law firm. The judge acknowledged that the document in question, a draft defense brief, was confidential. Consequently, the judge correctly concluded that it was appropriate to cancel the seizure of this document, while keeping the report on the progress of the control operations intact.
Context and judicial approach to documents seized in law firms: –
Previously, the chamber of commerce had established a different approach. It held that when documents seized in a law firm were claimed to be protected by professional secrecy, the production of these documents should be ordered, without however annulling the report drawn up during the seizure. Only the seizure of these documents, if any, would be canceled and their return ordered. According to the chamber, “the seizure of a document covered by professional secrecy entails the nullity of the minutes which relates the methods and the progress of the operations”. However, the Court of Cassation did not adopt this point of view.
Furthermore, the Court of Cassation has determined that Article L.16B of the Book of Tax Procedures does not impose a penalty of nullity on the notification and delivery of a copy of the minutes and the inventory drawn up at the end of the control and seizure operations. It specified that the sending of these documents by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt to the person accused of fraudulent activities is not necessary if this person was present or represented during the operations, and that a copy was given to him or his representative.
Point of view of the Court of Cassation and applicability of article L.16B: –
Jurisprudence has also rejected a request for cancellation of the seizure of documents used in the defense of one of the parties to the trial. It should be noted that article L.16B of the book of tax procedures allows the seizure of documents, which may also be subject to professional secrecy, incriminating a person suspected of fraud. In the specific case mentioned, the seizure of these documents took place.
