The 400 million is not the 3.5 billion.
@solidintel_x posted at 13:56 UTC on November 4. https://x.com/solidintel_x/status/2117979192524480912. When I read it, that post had 15 likes, 1 repost, 4 replies, 1 quote, 1 bookmark, and 4,209 impressions. The text is one line. French lawmakers passed an amendment forcing a declaration of self-custody crypto worth over €100,000. The line stops there. The page they voted does not say what he said in the chamber.
What he said, and what the page says
The sitting is the second one on Tuesday, November 3. https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/17/comptes-rendus/seance/session-ordinaire-de-2026-2027/deuxieme-seance-du-mardi-03-novembre-2026. I read the stretch on amendment 2701. The transcript is in French. I am paraphrasing it. I am not putting a translation in quotation marks.
Charles de Courson defended the amendment. The figures he was given, he said, go back to 2021. 400 million euros of gains had been declared for income tax. Some studies, he said, put the real gains around 3.5 billion euros. The fraud rate would then be 80 to 90 percent. The president cut his mic on the next sentence, the one about 5,000 euros being too small to bother with.
The written amendment does not say that. https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/17/amendements/3210A/AN/2701. I read it today. The exposé says holdings are underestimated. Realized gains were 3.5 billion euros in 2021. Only 400 million euros of assets held were declared to the DGFiP the same year. It points at recommendation 9 of the inquiry report on high wealth and high income, the one de Courson wrote, under Jean-Paul Mattei as chair. I did not open that report. I am not going to supply a study he did not name in the sitting.
A gain is what you made. An asset is what you still hold on a date. 400 million of one and 3.5 billion of the other do not produce a rate. The speech treats both figures as gains. The page treats the 400 million as assets declared, and the 3.5 billion as gains realized. Same year. Different units.
400 divided by 3,500 is 11.4 percent. If both numbers were gains, the undeclared share would be 88.6 percent, which sits inside 80 to 90. That arithmetic is the speech. It is not the exposé. The exposé also has a doubled “de” in “de d’actifs détenus”, which is sloppy, and the unit is what the rate depends on.
The post does not print either number. It prints the threshold, and the word forcing.
What 150 voted for
The count is in the same transcript. 202 voted. 194 expressed a choice. Absolute majority 98. 150 for. 44 against. The amendment was adopted. 202 minus 194 is 8 who did not express a vote. The transcript does not print the word abstention on that line. I am not adding it.
Two lower lines lost in the same stretch. Nicolas Sansu’s amendment 3922, a declaration from 5,000 euros: 207 voted, 200 expressed, 73 for, 127 against. Not adopted. His fallback, 3923, at 50,000 euros: 205 voted, 196 expressed, 71 for, 125 against. Not adopted. The 100,000 euro text is the one that passed. Philippe Juvin, the general rapporteur, had already said he did not know which of the three thresholds to pick.
Juvin said the commission had not examined Sansu’s pair. He called the principle intelligent, because the tax office does not know the amount sitting in self-hosted wallets, and he called that a source of fraud. He also said Sansu’s texts had no penalty, so they seemed inoperative, and de Courson’s did. On 2701 his advice was one word, sagesse, which leaves the vote to the room. David Amiel, the minister, was unfavorable. Also one word.
The article that passed is short. After the first paragraph of article 1649 bis C of the general tax code, a new paragraph. The persons and legal entities already named in that first paragraph must also declare crypto-asset wallets they hold directly, when those wallets are not kept with a crypto-asset service provider, and the total value of the crypto-assets in them, valued on December 31 of the year the declaration covers, is at least 100,000 euros. I did not open article 1649 bis C. The amendment does not restate who that first paragraph already names. I am not going to invent the population.
It also does not list fields. Declare the wallets. That is the sentence. It does not say address, balance, key, or a form number.
The second change is the fine. In the first sentence of the first paragraph of article 1729 C ter, the words “et 1649 AG” become “, 1649 AG et 1649 bis C”. The exposé says the sanction can go up to 10,000 euros if you do not declare. I did not open the current article on Légifrance. I am using their cap, not a schedule I did not read. The exposé also says wallets “supérieures à 100 000 euros”, above 100,000. The article says greater than or equal to 100,000. The voted text is the article. 100,000 is in.
Forcing is the post’s word
Amiel’s longer answer came a few minutes earlier, on Sansu’s texts, and it covers the same duty. DAC8, he said, will tighten reporting by providers who act as intermediaries, and those figures cannot be fiddled by the holder in the same way. Sansu cut in to say that does not cover self-hosted crypto. Amiel agreed. Then he said the filing would depend on the holder, and you can imagine a fraudster or a bandit simply not making it. He does not think this reaches the large fraud. Aim at the intermediaries, he said, until there is a technical answer for self-hosted setups. Unfavorable. On 2701 he did not add a second speech. He said unfavorable, and they voted.
The post says forcing. A form the minister described as something a bandit can skip is not a seizure of keys. The keys stay where they were. What the article adds, if it ever becomes law, is a duty to tell the tax office you hold wallets over that December 31 line, plus a fine hook the exposé caps at 10,000 euros. That is a list, if people file it. It is not the coins.
Paul Midy, in the same stretch, said people in crypto are assaulted or kidnapped every three days in France, and that personal addresses had been posted online. I am not adopting his count. I did not open a kidnapping tally this morning. He was arguing against the 5,000 euro line, and that line lost. The 100,000 euro line passed anyway. The amendment does not say how many holders sit over that line on a December 31.
The sitting was not the vote on the bill. LCP, Anne-Charlotte Dusseaulx, at 00:03 on November 3, before that afternoon sitting. https://lcp.fr/actualites/budget-2027-le-marathon-de-la-partie-recettes-n-etant-pas-termine-le-vote-solennel-prevu. Monday night, 758 amendments were still waiting on the first part of the 2027 finance bill. The solemn vote set for Tuesday was postponed again. The afternoon sitting adopted 2701 and kept going. The sommaire after 2701 still lists 3873, 3874, and more. Cointelegraph, published November 4, says that revenue-section vote was postponed a second time while the amendments kept coming. https://cointelegraph.com/news/france-approves-amendment-self-custodied-crypto-wallets-100k. I did not open today’s order of the day for a new hour.
LCP also prints the clock. Under the constitutional deadlines, the Assembly has until midnight on November 17, at the latest, to examine the finance bill and vote on it in first reading. On that date the budget has to go to the Senate. That is their sentence. I did not open article 47 to recompute it.
An amendment adopted in a sitting is not a statute. The government was against this one. The solemn vote on the part that would carry it has not been held, on the reporting I read. The 150 is real. The 80 to 90 percent is a rate you only get by treating assets declared as gains declared.
400 million of assets is not 3.5 billion of gains. The post does not print either figure. I read the page. I did not open the 2021 study.