- •Law and Economic Crimes in Europe Section 1: Fraud
- •Vocabulary notes
- •Vocabulary notes
- •Vocabulary notes
- •Vocabulary notes
- •Vocabulary notes
- •Vocabulary notes
- •Vocabulary notes
- •Vocabulary notes
- •Vocabulary notes
- •Vocabulary notes
- •Vocabulary notes
- •Section 3: Corruption and Remedies against it Text l
- •Vocabulary notes
- •Vocabulary notes
- •Vocabulary notes
- •Vocabulary notes
Vocabulary notes
remedy 1) средство от болезни, лекарство;
2) средство, мера (против чего-либо);
3) средство судебной зашиты, средство защиты права
pattern модель, система
sporadic единичный, случайный
casual 1) случайный; 2) непреднамеренный;
3) случайный, нерегулярный
criterion (Lat.) критерий
pi. criteria
distinction различие, отличие, разница
homogeneity однородность
to be related относиться, иметь отношение
background предпосылка, данные, объяснения, фон, истоки
prone склонный
prone to anger вспыльчивый
Не is prone to Он склонен к быстрым действи ям.
prompt action.
environment окружающая обстановка, окружающая среда rooted вкоренившийся, коренящийся
penal уголовный
the penal code уголовный кодекс
to envisage предусматривать, рассматривать
misdemeanor судебно наказуемый проступок, преступление
felony уголовное преступление
contrary to противоположный
bribe взятка
Text 2
Italy has also adopted this line of action as is shown in Article 319 (Corruption for an Act that is Contrary to Official Duties) which is cited below: «The public official who omits or delays, or who has omitted or delayed an act of his/her office, or who has committed an act that is contrary to his/her official duty... is punishable with two to five years of imprisonment».
In accordance with Article 318, corruption in relation to official duty is punishable with between two months and three years of imprisonment. In several cases, the criminalisation of active corruption depends on the nature of the act carried out by the passive actor. The Netherlands and Denmark do not punish active corruption if this does not induce the public official to abuse his duties. On the other hand, Germany punishes this type of active corruption, although it envisages a lighter sanction (maximum two years of imprisonment) than that applied for corruption involving abuse of official duties (3 months to 5 years of imprisonment). In Portugal, the above-mentioned corruption was criminalised on 1 October 1995. The other states have not made any distinction in this respect. From an analysis of legislation in the various countries of the European Union, it is impossible to identify a distinction between active and passive corruption in all of them.
These two criminal acts represent the two faces of the same coin since corruption crimes involve more than one actor and presuppose at least one person offering or promising an advantage and another person accepting or receiving the advantage. However, in most cases it appears that the corrupter cannot be prosecuted for having participated in the transgression of the corrupted person, and vice versa. As far as the definition of the passive actor is concerned, numerous countries including Denmark, Sweden, Holland, the United Kingdom and Italy, have adopted a wide definition that covers public functionaries, judges, members of Parliament, political figures, members of the Armed Forces, functionaries of the Central Bank, and legal and economic consultants, in order to guarantee greater correctness in the public services.
Other countries like Finland and Portugal, have opted for a more limited extension of the above-mentioned concept, so as to cover only certain categories of public functionaries and elected offices. Austria, for example, does not extend the law related to corruption to members of an autonomous economic authority. Greece and Germany deal with corrupti6n of judges and referees in a specific separate article. In fact, the most significant differences between the legislation of the various states relate to the definition of the passive actor. This represents one of the main obstacles in the international fight against corruption, and it is hoped that all states will decide on a single definition of the public official. There is no problem regarding the definition in the case of the active party. Since active corruption is not a crime belonging to a certain category it can be perpetrated by anyone, whereas in the case of passive corruption, the actor can only be a very qualified person.