P. 1
OECD - Bribery in Public Procurement

OECD - Bribery in Public Procurement

|Views: 200|Likes:
Published by The Russia Monitor

More info:

Published by: The Russia Monitor on Apr 30, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





For the purpose of this report, the bribee is a person who carries out a
public function and accepts, directly or indirectly, a bribe. While neither
bribery between private entities nor the active bribery of private entities is
addressed in this study, it should be acknowledged that private persons
(natural and legal), may act on behalf of public authorities. In this case, the
private person would be associated to a public official, the bribing of whom
is considered a crime pursuant to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.

The bribee is often determined by the magnitude of the contract and the
type of business involved. In the cases submitted, some bribees held an
elected public function. However, most were public officials or persons
carrying out or executing works for a central or local state, an administration
or a public service, either in accordance with statutory rules or in the
framework of a contract.



In the arms sector, for instance, it seems that high level politicians
(monarchs, representatives of the ruling dynasty, presidents, prime
ministers, members of government) are targeted. Parliamentarians in key
positions as well as persons supervising acquisitions of the army (presidents
and reporters of the technical commission or the financial commission) will
also be approached by the briber. The next level would be high public
officials controlling the technical aspects of public orders. Finally, executing
officials in charge of the technical evaluations would also be targeted.

Although the briber – usually a private person – is considered to commit
the active offence, it was acknowledged that the bribee may be at the origin
of a corrupt transaction. Indeed, government officials may solicit bribes.
For instance, senior government officials may notify a project owner that he
or she will only be awarded a contract, or receive a payment, upon the
payment of a bribe. A junior government official may refuse to issue a visa
unless he/she receives a bribe.

Experts questioned whether domestic or foreign officials would act
similarly, in particular in relation to bribery in public procurement. On the
basis of the cases provided, no difference could be determined either in the
methods used to organise corrupt transactions or in the treatment of officials.

The World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank were
reported to consider acts by their international staff to be no different from
those carried out by domestic public officials. Consistent treatment is
justified since both types of staff have the authority to assign public funds.
Directives adopted by the Commission of the European Union foresee equal
treatment of domestic and international officials for the active and passive
corruption offence as well. This being said, international officials have
immunities which may be difficult or lengthy to lift.

The main concern raised by the experts with regard to the bribee was the
determination of who would fall under the Convention’s provisions. As
cases illustrate, bribees may be elected for a certain mandate, or they may
hold an indefinite public contract, or they may have a statutory and
temporary contract to execute a public function. They may also be working
in the context of a private entity that carries out an activity of public utility.
Experts expressed concern that jurisdictions may have different definitions
of the bribee.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->