Reported French crypto-disclosure vote remains unverified
Claims that France’s National Assembly approved a €100, 000 reporting rule for self-custodied crypto are not confirmed by the legislative records identified so far. The Assembly record concerns a different tax proposal, while the Senate document contains no usable legislative text.
- The reported amendment number, 150 to 44 vote and €100, 000 threshold remain unverified.
- The Assembly record examined concerns a proposed tax on assets held by certain companies, not personal crypto disclosures.
- That mismatch does not prove the crypto proposal is false or that no vote took place.
What the National Assembly record says
The National Assembly record for Amendment n°I-CF1746 describes a proposal deposited on October 4, 2026, during the first reading of the 2027 Finance Bill. Its authors are listed as Jean-Paul Mattei, Didier Padey, Sophie Mette, Emmanuel Mandon and Éric Martineau.
The proposal would impose a 2% tax on specified financial assets held by certain patrimonial holding companies. It would amend Article 235 ter C of France’s General Tax Code. It does not propose that individuals declare self-custodied crypto.
The crypto claim instead refers to Amendment I-2701, reportedly introduced by Charles de Courson and six colleagues, and to a proposed change to Article 1649 bis C. The Assembly record for I-CF1746 does not include that amendment or verify its sponsors, wording or vote. The amendment numbers and subjects are different.
The Senate document identified for comparison is a PDF dated December 3, 2018. Its available text is generic placeholder material, not a legislative record about the 2027 Finance Bill or crypto reporting. It cannot establish whether a crypto amendment reached the Senate or what happened to it.
What the crypto claim says, and what is not confirmed
The claim says lawmakers approved a requirement for people to report qualifying crypto held directly, without a crypto-asset service provider, if the total value was at least €100, 000 on December 31. It also reports a vote of 150 to 44, with eight abstentions, and says failure to declare could result in a penalty of up to €10, 000. A separate report describes the proposal as France’s self-custody crypto reporting proposal.
The records identified here confirm neither those figures nor the reported rejection of earlier €5, 000 and €50, 000 thresholds. They also do not verify that the proposal would amend Article 1649 bis C, that David Amiel opposed it, or that Philippe Juvin and de Courson made the comments attributed to them.
This finding is limited: the specific Assembly and Senate records described above do not substantiate the crypto claims. They do not establish that Amendment I-2701 does not exist. Confirming the claims requires the amendment’s official text and the relevant Assembly voting record.
Why the details matter
Adopting an amendment is not the same as passing a finance bill, and neither automatically means a rule is in force. Without the amendment text and voting record, it is impossible to say whether the alleged vote took place in committee or in the Assembly plenary, or what stage the bill had reached.
The claim describes a disclosure obligation, not an annual tax on the reported holdings. But without the proposal’s text, that legal distinction cannot be confirmed. The same applies to the reported penalty and practical requirements: what information holders would submit, how crypto would be valued in euros, and what privacy safeguards would apply.
Self-custody generally means controlling the keys needed to authorize transactions rather than relying on a service provider to hold or manage the assets. A reporting rule covering self-custodied holdings could raise questions about valuation and data protection, much like the privacy concerns raised by France’s DAC8 reporting rules. Those concerns matter, but they should not be treated as confirmed provisions of a proposal whose text has not been established.
Key questions and answers
-
Did France approve a €100, 000 self-custody reporting rule?
The Assembly record identified here does not confirm it. That record concerns a different tax proposal, but the mismatch does not prove the crypto measure does not exist.
-
Is the reported 150 to 44 vote confirmed?
No relevant voting record has been identified here. The tally remains unverified, but that does not establish that no such vote took place.
-
Would the proposed rule tax crypto holdings?
The claim describes a reporting requirement rather than an annual tax, but the amendment text has not been confirmed. The records identified here are not enough to assess its actual legal effect.
-
What would confirm the claim?
The official text of Amendment I-2701 and its corresponding Assembly voting record would establish its wording, sponsors, vote and legislative stage.
