The Court of Cassation noted as follows:

• While it remained true that the applicable law at the time of the facts was Ordonnance n°45-2658 du 2 novembre 1945, the subsequent legal reforms operated in the realm of facilitation on illegal entry, transit or stay of irregular migrants (included Article L. 622 “Code de l'entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d'asile (CESEDA)”), were more beneficial to defendants. Accordingly, they were to be applied retrospectively.
• The fact that Article L. 622 CESEDA was not in force at the time of the events does not mean that the defendant could convincingly argue that he was unaware of the criminal nature of his conduct. Indeed, as Ordonnance n°45-2658 du 2 novembre 1945 sanctioned migrant smuggling, so does Article L. 622 CESEDA. Importantly, the latter does it in terms that are more favourable to the rights of the accused.
• The evidence adduced to the case does not raise doubts regarding the conviction of the defendant as determined by the Court of Appeal, namely (i) the defendant issued fraudulent certificates to the prospective irregular migrants so that they could be issued a visa, (ii) given the defendant’s professional functions, it is not convincing the argument that he was not aware of the irregular circumstances of the Chinese young migrants, (iii) the defendant acted in association and was in contact with other members of the organized criminal group in China, from who he received payment for his contribution to the smuggling venture.
• In the instant case, there was no ground to activate the corporate responsibility of the legal person the defendant was the director of. He acted on a personal capacity.

Accordingly, the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal.

NOTE: As per French national law, the purpose of obtaining a financial or other material benefit is not a constitutive element of the crime but rather an aggravating circumstance (see SHERLOC Database on Legislation – France).