DGEFP fines and a sanctions registry: the new disciplinary regime under France's 2026 anti-fraud law

Since 27 June 2026, a training provider that racks up serious breaches no longer risks only a DREETS inspection or a Qualiopi certification withdrawal: it can now face a fine imposed directly by the administration, and potentially see that sanction made public. Law n° 2026-534 of 25 June 2026 on combating social and tax fraud — already known for tightening the grounds for refusing or cancelling the NDA and for its new website transparency requirements — also contains a less-discussed but equally structural provision: a new administrative sanctions regime, paired with a publicity measure and the promise of a public registry of sanctioned providers. Here is what this actually changes, and why it isn’t only aimed at fraudsters.

An administrative fine imposed directly by the DGEFP

Until now, financially sanctioning a serious breach by a training provider usually required a criminal proceeding — complaint, investigation, judgment — with all the delays that implies. The 25 June 2026 law changes this for a range of breaches: the administration can now impose an administrative fine directly, without going through a criminal judge. In practice, this means a faster, more systematic response from the DGEFP and control services to breaches that previously sometimes went unaddressed for lack of available judicial resources.

Legal commentary points to a scale capped at €4,000 per breach found, increased by 50% for a repeat offense within the year. One specific case is directly priced in the text: Article 63 of the law punishes with a €4,500 fine the act of falsely claiming to be an operator of career guidance services (conseil en évolution professionnelle, or CEP) — a practice identified as a source of confusion for beneficiaries. The final scales and their precise implementing rules nonetheless remain subject to Council of State decrees, several of which are still pending.

Article 64: publicizing sanctions, a new tool

This is arguably the most deterrent provision of the law for providers already struggling with compliance. Article 64 of the law provides that sanctions imposed by control agents or funding bodies, in cases of fraudulent schemes or serious, repeated breaches of regulations, can be subject to a publicity measure — meaning they can be made public, under conditions to be set by decree. In the same spirit, certain decisions to cancel an activity declaration can also be published, notably when they result from a breach persisting after formal notice, or from producing false documents to improperly obtain registration, aid, or training funding.

This “publicizing sanctions” logic is far from anecdotal. An organization that knows it risks having its name publicly linked to a serious breach faces a very different compliance calculation than one risking only a discreet sanction at worst. A landmark study in corporate finance, by Jonathan M. Karpoff, D. Scott Lee, and Gerald S. Martin, «The Cost to Firms of Cooking the Books», published in 2008 in the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, found that for firms sanctioned for accounting fraud, the reputational loss cost, on average, several times more than the combined legal fines and settlements. In other words, making a sanction public can weigh more heavily on a provider than the fine itself — which is likely why lawmakers are leaning on this tool to strengthen deterrence beyond the fine amounts alone.

Toward a public registry of sanctioned providers

Beyond the case-by-case publications set out in Article 64, several legal analyses point to the gradual creation of a registry listing sanctioned training providers, meant to let trainees, companies, and funding bodies check a provider’s reliability before committing. Based on these same analyses, such a registry would cover Qualiopi certification suspensions, bans on practicing, fraud or scam convictions, and certification renewal refusals.

At the time this article is published, that registry is not yet fully operational: its rollout depends on implementing decrees expected during the second half of 2026, in line with the timeline already announced for the law’s other training-related provisions. This is worth watching closely even for a spotless provider: if you subcontract part of your activity, this future registry will become as natural a check as consulting the official Qualiopi directory.

What this actually means for your organization

Three takeaways to place yourself relative to this new regime:

1. The administrative response gets faster. A breach that, until now, might have gone unaddressed for lack of judicial resources can now be sanctioned directly by the DGEFP, without waiting for a criminal proceeding.
2. Reputation becomes a regulatory issue in its own right. With Article 64, a serious breach no longer just results in a fine: it can become visible to your clients, funders, and partners.
3. The timeline is still open. Not all implementing decrees on the fine scales, publicity rules, and the registry have been published: tracking their release is squarely part of the regulatory watch expected under Qualiopi indicator 23.

Who this law actually targets

It helps to place this regime within the broader panorama of sanctions applicable to training providers: NDA lapse, DREETS inspections, Qualiopi withdrawal, EDOF delisting. This new mechanism doesn’t replace any of these existing tools — it specifically strengthens the treatment of fraudulent schemes and serious, repeated breaches, not one-off oversights corrected in good faith. A provider that files its BPF every year, keeps its evidence file up to date, and corrects non-conformities within its certifying body’s deadlines has, in practice, nothing to fear from this law. It is aimed first at patterns regulators have flagged as recurring in CPF and apprenticeship fraud cases: fake attendance records, fictitious courses, impersonating a status, and repeat offenses after formal notice.

How to prepare before the decrees are published

• Check your NDA situation against the new grounds for refusal and cancellation introduced by the same law — see our dedicated article on the new NDA refusal and cancellation grounds.
• Audit your marketing claims, especially if you mention career guidance (CEP) services or any specific accreditation — the Article 63 fine specifically targets false status claims.
• Don’t let any non-conformity linger: in a regime where a sanction can become public, closing out a corrective action plan within your certifying body’s deadlines matters even more — see our method for documenting a corrective action plan.
• Add this file to your regulatory watch, to track the decrees setting the final fine scales, the publicity rules, and the registry’s launch date.

Take action

An up-to-date evidence file and a structured regulatory watch remain the best protection against this new sanctions regime. The Complete Kit Certif (€297, 14-day guarantee) provides the document templates expected in an audit or inspection, along with the indicator 23 legal watch template. If you’re just starting out, the ebook Create Your Training Organization in 30 Days (€67) lays the right foundations from the activity declaration onward, and the Complete Pack (€347) bundles both resources to secure creation and certification.