In part four of Patrick Laure’s latest article, he looks at the limits and structural imperfections of the regulatory lists used to compare so-called “subject” professions across different countries…

The concept of subjects and the declaration of suspicion

Or the transfer of sovereign power from the state to individuals, in a subtle, gradual way, over time.

The subject

Or the instilling in the minds of citizens of a role to play, inspired by the birth of a feeling of guilt if civic duty is not fulfilled.

1) The notion of the subject or the “baby on board” sticker.

On the behaviour induced or instilled in the minds of citizens.

The “baby on board” sticker, or the subconscious and guilt-inducing birth of the “subject”.

Of course, I have a bad habit of rear-ending the cars in front of me, except when I see the “baby on board” sticker on the back of a car; in which case I brake so as not to disturb the sleep of the newborn comfortably settled in their car seat, often in the back, sometimes in the front, but the car seat is then facing backwards, so be careful of the airbag.

When children are older, they sit in the front, like a parent.

If there is no “baby on board” sticker on the back of the car in front of me, nothing stops me, because I am supposed to crash into the car in front of me if, through forgetfulness or inadvertence, the owner of the vehicle has not affixed their “baby on board” sticker.

Would my survival instinct be overridden by a sticker? What about yours? Of course not, our survival instinct does not need to be dictated by a sticker to exist within us.

Nor do we need to be labelled “submissive” in order to stand our ground or brake in time.

Our lapses in vigilance are in no way a sign of a lack of vigilance; on the contrary, they are the exception that proves the rule. Our survival instinct prevails over everything else; our imperfection simply makes us human, alive and entitled.

So when I read “A piece of jewellery in Monaco may be used tomorrow in a drug transaction. In such a case, it is the jeweller who will be sought out. But if the jeweller has followed the rules, he will be protected” (Monaco Hebdo No. 1398, 6-11-2025), it leaves me perplexed, if not stunned.

But protected by whom? And above all, why? How could a jeweller be involved in a drug transaction? If the jeweller has accepted no more than €1,000 in cash and the rest of the total invoice is paid by cheque or bank transfer, it is the bank that is responsible for carrying out the initial check on the origin of the funds as required (see below).

It should not be otherwise, given the clarity of the roles assigned to all actors in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing, but above all in order to comply with the rules and spirit of the laws and standards governing the control of financial flows.

2) The concept of the Assujetti-subject, “In the name of the law“, “Au nom de la loi, or “Wanted, dead or alive”, Josh Randall (Steve McQueen).

In this series, Josh Randall is a bounty hunter. The state, the sheriff, has given him full powers to hunt down criminals, just like the “subjects”.

This transfer of sovereign power is accompanied by the payment of a bounty, not a prosecution as will be seen below, because the subject did not comply with the rules.

This complete reversal of the rules, or rather a mixing of genres, means that:

Economic agents no longer know what their main job is, and/or they forget the essentials, or at best, their status as subjects is time-consuming for them, at worst, they feel involved in a struggle that is not theirs, in all honourable civic duty.

Indeed, the authorities have stated that “in Monaco there are consumers but there are no dealing points“.

Of course, this is understandable and all well and good, but where are the dealing spots? In Nice?

Obviously, they are in Marseille too, and everywhere else in the world, in fact. Drug trafficking in figures, 2024 Senate Report: “The total value of drug trafficking in France is estimated at between €3 billion and €6 billion per year.”

So, everyone knows that, beyond being blacklisted or grey-listed for mediocrity, dirty money has a price tag. Is it up to the subject to count it? Apart from the fact that there is something frightening about being able to put a price on “reprehensible behaviour”.

And in this societal hypocrisy, especially on the part of the State, I cannot help but think, to paraphrase Marguerite Yourcenar, that in such a situation in our modern times, “there is nothing dirtier than clean money”.

3) The definition of the “Assujettis”, subject, and who they are.

The metaphysical or moral definition according to Larousse:  ‘Assujetti’ = Enslavement, Enslaved; Submission, Submissive (opposite of free).

The physical or technical definition of a subject: A person subject to a tax or levy (subject, taxable person, liable person) who is affiliated with Social Security or a similar organisation.

Thus, the Assujetti-Subject is subject to a tax, in this case a moral or civic tax. A kind of community service (TIG), resulting not from a conviction, but from their status within the workings of the modern economic machine.

The definition according to the AML/CFT, to simplify, is that the Assujetti-subject is an independent economic actor who receives money. Thus, according to the definition in the Petit Larousse dictionary, receiving money means being a prisoner.

4) The imperfections of the list and the limitations of comparisons between member countries.

Even if comparison is not reason, when it comes to the application of European standards, it is logical to compare Assujetti-subject , depending on whether they are French, Monegasque, or from any other country that can be legitimately compared.

Subject in Monaco

By profession:

Credit institutions 29 – Finance companies 4 – Management companies 61 – Life insurance intermediaries 83 – Currency exchange offices 3 – Pawnbrokers 1 Service providers to companies and trusts (TCSP) 37 – Trust administrators (trustees) 34 – Multi-Family Offices 22 – Casinos (SBM and SFE) 3 – Estate agents 151 – Property dealers 305 – Legal advisers 77 – Chartered accountants and certified public accountants 47 – Jewellers/precious stone dealers, metal dealers, gem dealers 144 – Antique dealers and art dealers 40 – Car dealers  19 – Sports agents  62 Yachting professionals 172 – Auction professionals  26 – Warehouse keepers (section 17, article 1 of the AML/CFT Act) 3 Crowdfunding advisers and intermediaries 1 Virtual asset service providers (including token offerings) 2 – Lawyers 32 – Notaries -3 – Bailiffs  3.

A total of 1,364 regulated entities

By legal form

Limited liability companies (S.A.R.L.) 2,782 Limited partnerships (S.C.S.) 75 General partnerships (S.N.C.) 12 Monegasque public limited companies (S.A.M.) 1,207 Limited partnerships with share capital (S.C.A.) 2 Civil companies (SCI and SCP) 15,764 Economic interest groups (GIE) 5.

This gives a total of 19,847 companies.

The fact that the number of taxable entities (1,364) is 14 times lower than the number of legal entities (19,847) is mainly due to SCI and SCP (15,764), which are only “taxable” insofar as these legal forms must declare their “beneficial owners”. i.e. Moneyval requires transparency regarding the origin of asset holders, or capital sums. Capital that may be subject to flows, of course.

For example.

France has more than 200,000 subject, with nearly 165,171 suspicious activity reports, compared to 79 reports in Monaco. The figures are not comparable, nor is the nature of the subjects.

In France, domiciliation companies are subject to the law, which is normal, there are more than 1,500 of them, and the risk of VAT fraud is significant (several companies, with the same manager but in different departments, re-invoicing each other for the same invoices). In Monaco, there are only three domiciliation companies, the risk is zero, and a malicious manager would be exposed just by crossing the road.

It is normal that the three domiciliation companies are not on the list of assujettti-subject persons in Monaco.

Another difference is that in France, social security fraud is significant, so organisations are subject to scrutiny. In Monaco, however, the CCAS is not on the list of organisations subject to scrutiny, but does CCAS fraud exist in Monaco? The question remains open.

Patrick LAURE
Secrétaire Particulier
+33 6 35 45 27 02
laurepatrick@wanadoo.fr

**The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Laws and regulations vary by jurisdiction and may change over time. Readers should consult a qualified legal professional for advice specific to their situation. The author and publisher are not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.