Some States equally criminalize and penalize the offeror and the recipient of bribes or other illegal payments. In some States the offence and the penalty are different, depending on whether public officials are or are not involved. In other states such distinctions no lega consequences. Also, laws cover the role of intermediaries, e bene was provided to a public servant through a nominee or agent. Fraud An alternative way of dealing with corrupt payments, especially in transactions between the private and public sector, is through the crime of fraud (as is the case in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). When corrupt intentions cannot be proved easily of at all, it may still be possible to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the overpricing of a pro ject is due to the effort of a company to recuperate the cost of bribes. The same applies to cases of providing work of inferior quality than that specified in the contract, charging for goods or services never delivered, altering the specifications or the timing of completion etc. Other illicit payments Observers have often referred to speed money, amounts paid to officials in order to expedite a decision-making or other process. In such cases officials receive illicit benefits to do what they are supposed to do anyway. In certain cases, advantages are conferred or promised in order to cut the red tape Although some might rationalize this practice by thinking that it is valuable and in the best interests of their community such payments ate commonly outlawed. Another act worthy of consideration is the payment of money to politicians to influence not only their vote in parliament or committees of which they are members but also for asking particular questions or raising issues. In democratic societies, such practices may be regarded as undermining the principle of one person, one vote, and of equality and fairness- those who do not have the means to influence the politica
Some States equally criminalize and penalize the offeror and the recipient of bribes or other illegal payments. In some States the offence and the penalty are different, depending on whether public officials are or are not involved. In other States, such distinctions have no legal consequences. Also, laws cover the role of intermediaries, if the benefit was provided to a public servant through a nominee or agent. Fraud An alternative way of dealing with corrupt payments, especially in transactions between the private and public sector, is through the crime of fraud (as is the case in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). When corrupt intentions cannot be proved easily or at all, it may still be possible to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the overpricing of a project is due to the effort of a company to recuperate the cost of bribes. The same applies to cases of providing work of inferior quality than that specified in the contract, charging for goods or services never delivered, altering the specifications or the timing of completion etc. Other illicit payments Observers have often referred to "speed money", amounts paid to officials in order to expedite a decision-making or other process. In such cases, officials receive illicit benefits to do what they are supposed to do anyway. In certain cases, advantages are conferred or promised in order to cut the red tape. Although some might rationalize this practice by thinking that it is valuable and in the best interests of their community, such payments ate commonly outlawed. Another act worthy of consideration is the payment of money to politicians to influence not only their vote in parliament or committees of which they are members, but also for asking particular questions or raising issues. In democratic societies, such practices may be regarded as undermining the principle of one person, one vote, and of equality and fairness - those who do not have the means to influence the political
process in this way will not be sufficiently listened to and their nterests may not be adequately represented. An offence that may be used to prosecute many of the above-mentioned practices is that of trading in influence, which is currently being considered by the Council of Europ working group on criminal law Buying and delivering of votes A related type of misconduct, also undermining democratic principles is the direct or indirect purchase of votes. Those able and willing te pay voters to vote for them gain an unfair advantage over those who follow the rules and do not wish to or cannot resort to similar practices. This offence may be committed not only through direct payments, but also though clientelism and patronage whereby favours and jobs may be offered only to those who voted for the official in power Votes may be delivered in the sense of accepting favours or other advantages from a public official or representative of a party to ensure that people over whom the deliverer has control in a geographical location company or other organization will vote for the corrupt candidate. Illicit political contributions Some States disallow contributions to political parties or candidates, while others criminalize them when they exceed a certain amount or violate disclosure rules. Sometimes the contributions are outlawed only when they are made by certain categories of persons (for example, by foreigners) If the intention of the contributor is to exert undue influence on a political party or candidate the offence of bribe e absence of specific laws regarding such contributions
process in this way will not be sufficiently listened to and their interests may not be adequately represented. An offence that may be used to prosecute many of the above-mentioned practices is that of trading in influence, which is currently being considered by the Council of Europe working group on criminal law. Buying and delivering of votes A related type of misconduct, also undermining democratic principles, is the direct or indirect purchase of votes. Those able and willing to pay voters to vote for them gain an unfair advantage over those who follow the rules and do not wish to or cannot resort to similar practices. This offence may be committed not only through direct payments, but also though "clientelism" and patronage, whereby favours and jobs may be offered only to those who voted for the official in power. Votes may be delivered in the sense of accepting favours or other advantages from a public official or representative of a party to ensure that people over whom the deliverer has control in a geographical location, company or other organization will vote for the corrupt candidate. Illicit political contributions Some States disallow contributions to political parties or candidates, while others criminalize them when they exceed a certain amount or violate disclosure rules. Sometimes the contributions are outlawed only when they are made by certain categories of persons (for example, by foreigners). If the intention of the contributor is to exert undue influence on a political party or candidate, the offence of bribery can be used in the absence of specific laws regarding such contributions
Abuse of power and breach of trust A host of malpractices can be considered as examples of exploitation of a public office and abuse of power or breach of trust. They range from favouritism and illegal discrimination to abusing sensitive or confidential information. Extortionate demands may be made for favourable treatment or for simply not discriminating against a private person. Demands may include payments gifts or sexual intimacy. Abuses of power may take place in the process of liberalization of economies as State-owned companies are privatized. Opportunities exist in this process for officials to undervalue the price of a company, so that it is sold very cheaply to private interests. The value of the company and, consequently the price of its shares may go significantly higher within a short period of time. Officials can then be rewarded in a variety of ways. Officials who have special knowledge about pending or not publicity announced decisions may commit insider trading, by engaging in commercial or business activity in an unauthorized and im fashion on the basis of non-public information. For instance, they may buy the stock of companies that they know will be awarded a contract by the government (the price of the stock is likely to go up when a big order is publicly announced, and corrupt officials can then sell the shares at a substantial profit). This trading, again, may occur through relatives, nominees or shell corporations. Inside knowledge may be abused by disclosing to a company representative the secret details of a competitors bid for a public construction work. The company thus obtains the order by being able to prepare its own proposal with the advantage thus given. In this case, unfair competition laws may apply. the corrupt official may be given something of value in exchange. Some observers have noted the case of deferred bribery, a type of misconduct that is not easy to criminalize but worth considering because of its harmful effects. This type of bribery occurs when the official is simply given a very well-paid position in a company that he favoured while in office shortly after he retires from public service. Because the elements of bribery in such cases are hard to prove, some States have introduced or are considering the introduction of, laws prohibiting officials from working for companies that they regulated, or which were involved in transactions with the officials department while these officials were in office. Other States opt for a waiting period during which former officials cannot accept employment from entities in such cases as mentioned above- two or more
Abuse of power and breach of trust A host of malpractices can be considered as examples of exploitation of a public office and abuse of power or breach of trust. They range from favouritism and illegal discrimination to abusing sensitive or confidential information. Extortionate demands may be made for favourable treatment or for simply not discriminating against a private person. Demands may include payments, gifts or sexual intimacy. Abuses of power may take place in the process of liberalization of economies as State-owned companies are privatized. Opportunities exist in this process for officials to undervalue the price of a company, so that it is sold very cheaply to private interests. The value of the company and, consequently, the price of its shares may go significantly higher within a short period of time. Officials can then be rewarded in a variety of ways. Officials who have special knowledge about pending or not publicity announced decisions may commit insider trading, by engaging in commercial or business activity in an unauthorized and improper fashion on the basis of non-public information. For instance, they may buy the stock of companies that they know will be awarded a contract by the Government (the price of the stock is likely to go up when a big order is publicly announced, and corrupt officials can then sell the shares at a substantial profit). This trading, again, may occur through relatives, nominees or shell corporations. Inside knowledge may be abused by disclosing to a company representative the secret details of a competitor's bid for a public construction work. The company thus obtains the order by being able to prepare its own proposal with the advantage thus given. In this case, unfair competition laws may apply. The corrupt official may be given something of value in exchange. Some observers have noted the case of deferred bribery, a type of misconduct that is not easy to criminalize but worth considering because of its harmful effects. This type of bribery occurs when the official is simply given a very well-paid position in a company that he favoured while in office shortly after he retires from public service. Because the elements of bribery in such cases are hard to prove, some States have introduced, or are considering the introduction of, laws prohibiting officials from working for companies that they regulated, or which were involved in transactions with the officials' department while these officials were in office. Other States opt for a waiting period during which former officials cannot accept employment from entities in such cases as mentioned above - two or more
years. Disallowing the use of revolving doors can help strengthen public perceptions of the integrity of their government and officials. Officials with powers of control over revenue departments or social agencies have the opportunity to interfere improperly with the work of those bodies. They may orchestrate persecutions of political opponents organizations or companies for ideological of profit-motivated reasons. They may direct the selective prosecution of certain offenders, or systematically turn a blind eye to other offenders. They may arbitrarily undercharge or overcharge taxes and duties on commercial transactions to the point of extortion. Obstruction of justice is an offence that may be used against officials who seek to hide or cover up such illegal activities by misdirecting investigations or destroying evidence. Such misconduct is often linked to the operation of illegal enterprises and markets -what is usually considered organized crime. The best-organized crimes perpetrated discreetly, without risking scandals and public attention, and with the collaboration of officials. Whenever there is suspicious of serious drug trafficking, arms trafficking or other smuggling operations on a grand scale, it can be expected that the collusion and illicit enrichment of some official will be found. in dealing with such practices, legal tools used against organized crimina groups, such as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statue in the United States of America, may prove useful in the punishment of corrupt officials Misappropriation of public funds The offences of abuse of power and breach of trust can also be used against practices that involve th nd misappropriation of public funds or resources. Public officials may divert public money to their accounts or those of a partner Some autocratic rulers are known for the sy stematic looting of their countries' wealth. Additional offences that may be used in those cases include embezzlement and theft, both of which are quite common among Member States. States that apply currency restrictions and controls may use the violation of those rules to prosecute corrupt officials who export the proceeds of their illicit profits overseas Other States may resort to laws prohibiting tax evasion, given that this illegal income is neither declared nor taxed. In the event that ar official is unable to explain his or her net worth and level of spending, prosecutors may be able to use this as an evidence of tax evasion
years. Disallowing the use of "revolving doors" can help strengthen public perceptions of the integrity of their government and officials. Officials with powers of control over revenue departments or social agencies have the opportunity to interfere improperly with the work of those bodies. They may orchestrate persecutions of political opponents, organizations or companies for ideological of profit-motivated reasons. They may direct the selective prosecution of certain offenders, or systematically turn a blind eye to other offenders. They may arbitrarily undercharge or overcharge taxes and duties on commercial transactions to the point of extortion. Obstruction of justice is an offence that may be used against officials who seek to hide or cover up such illegal activities by misdirecting investigations or destroying evidence. Such misconduct is often linked to the operation of illegal enterprises and markets - what is usually considered organized crime. The best-organized crimes perpetrated discreetly, without risking scandals and public attention, and with the collaboration of officials. Whenever there is suspicious of serious drug trafficking, arms trafficking or other smuggling operations on a grand scale, it can be expected that the collusion and illicit enrichment of some official will be found. In dealing with such practices, legal tools used against organized criminal groups, such as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statue in the United States of America, may prove useful in the punishment of corrupt officials. Misappropriation of public funds The offences of abuse of power and breach of trust can also be used against practices that involve the misuse and misappropriation of public funds or resources. Public officials may divert public money to their accounts or those of a partner. Some autocratic rulers are known for the systematic looting of their countries' wealth. Additional offences that may be used in those cases include embezzlement and theft, both of which are quite common among Member States. States that apply currency restrictions and controls may use the violation of those rules to prosecute corrupt officials who export the proceeds of their illicit profits overseas. Other States may resort to laws prohibiting tax evasion, given that this illegal income is neither declared nor taxed. In the event that an official is unable to explain his or her net worth and level of spending, prosecutors may be able to use this as an evidence of tax evasion
Conflict of interest Public officials have the obligation to be fair, impartial and efficient in their public roles. The legislation of many States provides that it is not appropriate for officials to make decisions significantly affecting companies in which they are shareholders or directors. Such conflicts, in some States, are outlawed entirely. In others, the officials must dec lare the conflict and withdraw from the decision-making process with respect to the area of potential conflict. In yet other States, mere disclosure of the conflict is considered sufficient to prevent improper decisions by an official. In those cases, non-di closure f related interests is a punishable offence The same would apply to violations of routine obligations of public servants to place their assets on public records (sometimes including the assets of their close family members) United Nations action against corruption and bribery The United Nations has been concerned with the problem of corruption for more than two decades. The matter has been discussed by the quinquennial United Nations congresses on the prevention of crime and the treatment f offenders, particularly with reference to new forms of crime and crime prevention planning in the context of development. The Fifth Congress on the prevention of Crime and the treatment of offenders held in geneva in 1975. focused on crime as business at the national and internationa levels, bringing particular attention into organized crime, white collar crime and corruption. The working paper prepared by the Secretariat and titled: Changes in Forms and Dimensions of Criminality Transnational and National",recognized the increasing threat posed by economic crimes, and in particular by corruption, to many countries in the world. The report also noted that for most countries the economic and social consequences of economic criminality are much greater than the consequences of the traditional forms of violent crime and crime against property. The Fifth Congress also considered the role of the police in the prevention of crime, in accordance with a specific request made by
Conflict of interest Public officials have the obligation to be fair, impartial and efficient in their public roles. The legislation of many States provides that it is not appropriate for officials to make decisions significantly affecting companies in which they are shareholders or directors. Such conflicts, in some States, are outlawed entirely. In others, the officials must declare the conflict and withdraw from the decision-making process with respect to the area of potential conflict. In yet other States, mere disclosure of the conflict is considered sufficient to prevent improper decisions by an official. In those cases, non-disclosure of related interests is a punishable offence. The same would apply to violations of routine obligations of public servants to place their assets on public records (sometimes including the assets of their close family members). United Nations action against corruption and bribery The United Nations has been concerned with the problem of corruption for more than two decades. The matter has been discussed by the quinquennial United Nations congresses on the prevention of crime and the treatment of offenders, particularly with reference to new forms of crime and crime prevention planning in the context of development. The Fifth Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held in Geneva in 1975, focused on crime as business at the national and international levels, bringing particular attention into organized crime, white collar crime and corruption. The working paper prepared by the Secretariat and titled: "Changes in Forms and Dimensions of Criminality - Transnational and National"(2), recognized the increasing threat posed by economic crimes, and in particular by corruption, to many countries in the world. The report also noted that for most countries the economic and social consequences of economic criminality are much greater than the consequences of the traditional forms of violent crime and crime against property. The Fifth Congress also considered the role of the police in the prevention of crime, in accordance with a specific request made by