International Journal on Criminology Volume 5, Number 2, Winter 2017/2018 | Page 17

International Journal on Criminology
which bring new questions about the delegation of authority, the full application
of regulations to subcontractors, third-party invoicing, the shared responsibility of
customers, and so on.
Furthermore, while customers do not yet fall within the range of infractions
which the regulator monitors, they fall within its remit through the question of
standardization: the standardization committee of CNAPS, established in 2015,
allows us to make some predictions about standard projects which will appear at
the national, European, and international level in coming years. But standardization
is above all a factor in the market regulation and in contracts between clients
and providers. It is one thing (and a good one) for the public regulator to take an
interest in standardization as part of his or her mission to advise and assist the
profession, but it would be better if those most involved, the service suppliers and
customers, themselves took an interest in it.
6. CONTRACTUAL ISSUES OR LEGAL ISSUES?
BUT NOW—BOTH PROVIDERS AND CUSTOMERS ...
Many of the papers presented at this conference address not only contractual
and economic issues but also legal ones: “The Goals of Subcontracting:
A Matter of necessity or a Slippery Slope?;” “Prohibited Contracts:
Limits to the Delegation of Police Powers;” “The Security Service Provider’s Civil
Responsibility;” and “The Fight Against Illicit Practices (Illegal Lending, Illegal
Labor, Laundering, and Clauses Which Contradict the Ethics Code).” Is our topic
in fact the legal issues of contract security?
The move from contractual to legal issues brings into question the role of
the regulator, the CNAPS, and its disciplinary mission. From this point of view, the
CNAPS monitors, identifies, and punishes breaches of contract, connecting contractual
and legal issues. This is true for failures to pay the tax on private security
activities (which must appear at the bottom of client invoices), failures of transparency
in the use of subcontracting, the use of subcontractors not authorized by
the CNAPS, and breaches of the exclusivity principle. In the face of the economic
issues outlined above, however, we must understand that the regulator will expand
the range of infractions it concerns itself with as its own professionalization proceeds.
In 2016, a protocol for combating illegal labor established by the CNAPS
and the National Delegation for Combating Illegal Labor aimed to broaden this
range of infractions, marking the end of trade secrecy between the CNAPS’s inspectors
and public officials tasked with combating illegal labor. We should recall
that the Labor Code includes clauses on shared financial and criminal responsibility
for customers in cases of illegal labor, something which the CSI does not (yet)
include.
The regulator is already encouraging customers to take account of the regulatory
obligations to which their suppliers are subject. A letter signed by the
12