From AML to tax audits: how Tracfin information can now reach the French tax authorities

For many years, Tracfin has been perceived primarily as a criminal and anti-money laundering authority, operating in a separate sphere from ordinary tax audits.

That perception is now outdated.

Since October 2025, a regulatory change has clarified and expanded the conditions under which Tracfin may transmit information to other public authorities — including the French tax administration. This evolution does not create an unlimited right of access to financial intelligence, but it does materially reshape the interaction between AML reporting and tax enforcement.

Understanding the exact scope of this change is essential for entrepreneurs and high-net-worth individuals with cross-border structures.

Tracfin’s role in the French AML framework
Tracfin’s historical mandate: AML, CFT and serious tax fraud

Tracfin is the French financial intelligence unit in charge of combating money laundering, terrorist financing and serious financial crime. It receives and analyses suspicious transaction reports submitted by regulated professionals such as banks, insurance companies, investment firms and notaries.

Historically, Tracfin’s interactions with the tax authorities were largely associated with cases of aggravated tax fraud or the laundering of its proceeds. Information sharing existed, but it was commonly perceived as exceptional and linked to penal thresholds.

The limits of information sharing under the previous legal framework

Before 2025, the list of authorities to which Tracfin could transmit information was defined directly by statute. This contributed to a relatively rigid and compartmentalised system, reinforcing the belief that AML disclosures and tax audits operated in parallel, rather than in coordination.

The legal turning point: what changed in October 2025
The September 8, 2025 decree and its legal basis

An order dated 8 September 2025, applicable from 1 October 2025, updated the list of public authorities authorised to receive information from Tracfin pursuant to Article L.561-31 of the French Monetary and Financial Code.

Rather than expanding Tracfin’s missions, the decree clarifies and formalises the framework governing the transmission of information already collected through AML mechanisms.

The inclusion of the French tax administration among Tracfin’s recipients

The decree expressly includes the French tax administration among the authorities that may receive information from Tracfin, provided that such information is directly related to the recipient’s statutory missions.

This point is critical: the reform does not authorise indiscriminate data sharing, but it does confirm that AML-derived information may legitimately feed tax enforcement when relevant.

What Tracfin can (and cannot) transmit to tax authorities
Information directly related to the missions of the tax authorities

Tracfin may transmit information when it is relevant to the tax administration’s functions, including the detection of inconsistencies, undeclared income, artificial arrangements or unexplained financial flows.

In practice, this may include information that does not yet amount to criminal tax fraud but raises questions from a tax compliance perspective.

Why this is not an unlimited or automatic transmission

The transmission is neither automatic nor unlimited. It remains subject to a relevance test and proportionality constraints. Tracfin does not become a general data supplier for tax audits.

However, the practical threshold for transmission is lower than many taxpayers assume, particularly in complex international situations.

Practical consequences for entrepreneurs and HNWIs
When AML disclosures may trigger tax scrutiny

Information disclosed to banks, notaries or other regulated professionals in the context of AML obligations may now contribute to tax scrutiny, even if no penal offence is established.

Discrepancies between declared tax positions and financial narratives presented to institutions are increasingly difficult to sustain.

Increased cross-checks between banks, notaries and tax authorities

The reform reinforces an existing trend: the multiplication of cross-checks between financial intelligence, tax data and international information exchange mechanisms.

For international entrepreneurs, this means that compartmentalised reporting strategies are no longer defensible in the long term.

Why opacity is becoming a structural risk
The illusion of compartmentalisation between AML and tax

Many structures were historically designed on the assumption that AML reporting and tax reporting would remain siloed. That assumption is eroding.

Opacity does not create protection; it creates fragility when confronted with multi-source data analysis.

Substance, consistency and documentation as defensive tools

In this environment, the most robust protection lies in:

• genuine economic and legal substance,
• internal consistency across all disclosures,
• and clear documentation explaining the rationale of cross-border arrangements.

Sophistication without substance is increasingly easy to detect.

Strategic takeaways for international structuring
Designing structures that withstand multi-authority scrutiny

International structuring must now be assessed through the lens of multiple authorities operating with overlapping information sources, not in isolation.

Structures that are legally sound but economically artificial are particularly exposed.

Aligning legal, economic and reporting realities

Alignment between legal form, economic reality and reporting positions is no longer a best practice. It is a prerequisite.

This applies equally to holding structures, management companies, family investment vehicles and relocation strategies.

Conclusion: a practical checklist before tax scrutiny starts

The increasing interaction between AML reporting and tax enforcement makes one point clear: anticipation matters more than reaction.

Before assuming that your structure is robust, it is worth stepping back and reviewing it against a few concrete questions.

A practical checklist for entrepreneurs and HNWIs

You should be able to answer “yes” to each of the following:

• Are the narratives provided to banks, notaries and financial institutions fully consistent with your tax filings?
• Can each entity in your structure be justified by a clear economic and operational rationale?
• Is the location of decision-making aligned with where value is actually created?
• Are cross-border flows documented, traceable and economically coherent?
• Could you explain your structure clearly and convincingly to a tax auditor relying on third-party information?
• Is your documentation ready, rather than reconstructed under pressure?

If one or more of these questions raises hesitation, the issue is rarely technical. It is structural.

How we can help

At Altara Tax, we assist international entrepreneurs and high-net-worth individuals in reviewing and strengthening their structures in light of evolving enforcement practices.

Our work focuses on:

• aligning legal structuring, economic substance and reporting positions,
• identifying inconsistencies before they become points of exposure,
• and designing frameworks that withstand multi-authority scrutiny, including AML-driven tax audits.

If your current setup relies on assumptions that no longer hold, it may be time for a strategic review rather than a defensive response.

A conversation at the right time often avoids much more difficult discussions later.