WITH blunt weapons
a difficult crime to detect and punish, for the silence that surrounds both the lack of legislation and decriminalization. How to win the battle contro la corruzione?
di Pier Camillo Davigo
La corruzione è un reato con una cifra nera molto elevata. Si definisce cifra nera la differenza fra il numero di reati commessi e quelli risultanti dalle statistiche giudiziarie. La cifra nera varia a seconda di molti fattori, fra i quali il tipo di reato ed il contesto in cui viene commesso. La cifra nera della corruzione dipende dal fatto che è un reato a vittima diffusa (nel quale nessuno percepisce di essere stato danneggiato direttamente); dal fatto che, normalmente, viene commesso in assenza di testimoni, posto che raramente viene perpetrato in presenza di soggetti estranei; e che corrotti e corruttori hanno un convergente interesse al silenzio. Pertanto Corruption is hardly ever reported and is discovered only by investigations into other crimes.
In the past it was discovered during investigations of financial crimes (especially record invoices for nonexistent transactions), corporate (false company) or abuse of office. The crimes of corruption in fact generally require the availability of money, sometimes substantial, managed by the extra accounting firms and more generally the possibility of significant cash movements without special controls. In the presence of an actual state of accounting transparency would have been much more difficult to withdraw and transfer the huge amounts used for serious acts of corruption. On the other hand abuse of office can be an index of corruption detector. These offenses were also weakened by various regulatory changes voted on by each of the political spectrum, so the number of such procedures is now very low.
a difficult crime to be punished. The main problem to enable investigations on corruption, then, is to have news of crime. In this respect, as well as to restore discipline of serious accounting fraud, it is necessary first to break the silence of common interest to the corrupt and corrupting, by providing rules, rewards for those who provide crime reports and evidence, as is the case in respect of collaborators of justice in terms of crime and terrorism. However, to induce someone to work, it is necessary to have a procedure by which to start. In this respect would be useful to the prediction of covert operations similar to those in the field of crime, organized terrorism, drug trafficking, pedophilia, and more. These operations, suggested by international conventions, are common in Anglo-Saxon world: the United States of America are called integrity tests. The test consists of the tender or the request by an undercover police officer, money or other benefits and in arresting those who accept the proposal.
Once you get the news of crime and initiated proceedings arising further problems as a result of the inadequacy of the legislation. The crimes against public administration are characterized by a significant number of cases, the boundaries of which are at times uncertain, especially in light of certain fluctuations of jurisprudence.
The factual situation which distinguishes these forms of illegal activities, is very different from the theoretical models and cultural elaboration is evaluated by the legislature at the time of writing the code in the reform of the Law of 26 April 1990, No 86, which amended the figures of crimes without changing the basic system that was given to the matter in the penal code of 1930 and without impacting on some of the nodes that have proved essential in subsequent years.
Difficulties arise, however, not only by the high number of cases due to which the actual behavior, but - paradoxically - a reality far more criminal and complex theoretical models summarized in the rules. A thin line
extremely problematic is the distinction between crimes of corruption, proper and improper, and that of bribery in the light of the borders, sometimes evanescent, in that jurisprudence can be found. The normal but in art. 319 cod. pen. Provides for the criminalization of the conduct of a public official (meaning that the officer Chargé public service) and that of private agree that the public officer performs an act contrary to the duties of office or omits or delays an act of office in exchange for a promise or delivery of money or other benefits. It is a formula that apparently seems to leave out a series of pipes usually much more serious than the one described by the standard.
Two examples:
- payment for the result, in which there is agreement in the identification of an act, but the identification of a beneficial outcome to the private
- the officer on the payroll, that the public official is not paid in relation to a single practice, but has steadily paid by an individual because it makes available.
Apparently, a strictly literal reading of the rule, these two lines might not be provided by art. 319 cod. pen., so that if it did, that if indeed these two lines were not punishable under Article. 319, a problem arises concerning the constitutionality of the entire system of criminal offenses against public administration.
It would be strange indeed punished conduct that was less severe, ie the acceptance of remuneration for a single act and not the acceptance of remuneration for the performance of all possible future acts that may be made by public officials.
The Court, on scorta della valutazione più volte espressa dalla Corte costituzionale, per cui tra due possibili interpretazioni, una conforme alla Costituzione e una difforme dalla Costituzione bisogna privilegiare quella conforme, si è attestata nel senso di ritenere la formula di cui all’art. 319 cod. pen. suscettibile di interpretazione estensiva. La Corte Suprema di cassazione, con interpretazione estensiva, ha affermato più volte che non è necessaria, o comunque indispensabile, la ricerca dell’atto contrario ai doveri d’ufficio.
Si è affermata in giurisprudenza la soluzione per cui il reato di cui all’art. 319 cod. pen. si ha ogni qual volta non siano rispettate le regole inerenti l’uso del potere discrezionale, so that there is opposition to the official duties whenever a public official accepts a payment to or misuse of the discretion to give up a balance of interests, regardless of whether the act then issued to coincide with what would have been issued in the normal condition.
For example it was alleged that the crime of corruption in his office before the act the subject of illicit trade should not be understood in a formal sense, the phrase having to cover any conduct of public officials that is contrary to law or by the operational or that, however, violates the duty of loyalty, impartiality ed onestà che debbono osservarsi da chiunque eserciti una pubblica funzione. Poiché dal momento consumativo di corruzione esula l’effettivo compimento dell’atto, tanto che il reato si consuma anche se il pubblico ufficiale non faccia seguire alla promessa o alla ricezione dell’utilità l’atto che si è impegnato a compiere, la mancata individuazione in concreto del singolo “atto” che avrebbe dovuto essere omesso, ritardato o compiuto dal pubblico ufficiale contro i doveri del proprio ufficio non fa venir meno il delitto di cui all’art. 319 cod. pen., ove venga accertato che la consegna del denaro al pubblico ufficiale venne effettuata in ragione delle funzioni dallo stesso esercitate e per retribuirne i favori.
Tra corruzione e concussione
Il secondo punto critico è quello della distinzione tra concussione e corruzione. La giurisprudenza aveva escluso che la concussione fosse determinata solo dall’iniziativa del pubblico funzionario, perché con un atteggiamento, per esempio, ostruzionistico costui poteva determinare il privato ad assumere l’iniziativa. La Corte di Cassazione ha poi più volte affermato il principio secondo cui la concussione è compatibile con il fatto che il pubblico funzionario ponga in essere atti contrari ai doveri di ufficio dai quali il privato tragga un vantaggio.
Ancora di recente (Cass. Sez. 6, sent. n. 9528 del 9.1.2009 dep. 3.3.2009 rv 243047) è stato infatti reiterated that "in terms of bribery, the fact that the act of illicit trade by the public official is illegal and contrary to official duties does not in itself change the offense charged in the corruption, even when the taxable lines already in a situation of illegality and are aware of the illegality of the act, having to find that there was the crime of extortion when the pre-eminent position of prevaricating public official has created a state of fear that would prevent the free determination of the will of the private, as a result of the abuse of power or quality of the first. " (Which is related to induction sexual services of third country nationals, whether through the abuse of power quality and agents of the State Police on duty at the office of a foreign police).
Auto Recycling
Obviously it is difficult to match the quality of damaged private, victim of the crime of extortion (which airs in its case to extortion, apart from the subjective quality of public official) with respect to ' any benefit that the individual has improperly received under of infringement of official duties by a public servant.
How can then distinguish bribery by induction from the forms of corruption? The parameter, with a simplification, it must be identified in the balance of power between the public official and private sectors. The balance of power is in practice, it is clear that the public official still holds that the individual has no powers: the comparison is not legal but must be made with respect to the factual situation. The criterion adopted is to see specifically how they compared in case of an agreement, ie by induction of a concussion that resulted in an agreement between the private and the public official, this agreement took place on an equal basis, or if the willingness of the private has been constrained. The construction is fragile and I think would be good to remove the figure of the graft by induction, as we also asked the OECD would therefore be useful to the entry of the case.
Downstream of graft and corruption crimes is essential to the introduction of the car recycling. Today
not be punished for money laundering predicate offense who is in competition. This means that if the recycler has assured his willingness to launder money first assumption is that the crime was committed, is not applicable to him the penalty for money laundering. In
serial crimes such as corruption of the activity of a recycler, at least after the first episode, it will be attributed to the competition hypothesis offenders, which can be considered available to the recycler.
0 comments:
Post a Comment