REPORTS
OF THECOURSERESOURCE MATERIALSERIES
No. 56
GROUP 1CURRENT SITUATION OF AND RECENT TRENDS IN THE
CORRUPT ACTIVITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS, AND
CRIMINAL LEGISLATION AGAINST CORRUPTION
Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Members

Visiting Expert
Advisers

Mr. Joma Zidan
Mr.Chandrashekara
Mr. Asmadi Bin Hussin
Mr. Pravit Roykaew
Mr. Li Hai-Teng
Mr. Hiroshi Matsui
Mr. Naoki Ujita
Mr. Yoji Tanaka
Mr. Masahiro Okamura
Mr. Hector Efrain Castillo Guevara
Professor Antony Didrick Castberg
Professor Shoji Imafuku
Professor Chikara Satou
Professor Hiroshi Tsutomi(Palestine)(India)(Malaysia)(Thailand)(China)(Japan)(Japan)(Japan)(Japan)(Venezuela)(USA)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

I. INTRODUCTION
All members of this group agree that nocountry in the world is safe from
corruption. The only difference is thatsome countries are suffering from serious
and widespread corruption, so much so thatin certain countries corruption has become
the norm, if not a culture, while corruption
in other countries is at manageable level.
Group one was given the task to discuss
the current situation of and recent trends
in the corrupt activities of public officials,
and criminal legislation against corruption
in three sub-topics. The first part dealt
with the phenomenon of corruption,
reasons and background (including by
domestic/transnational organized crimegroup). The objective of this sub-topic was
to examine the concept of corruption, which
segment of the public service is involved,
the reasons why the perpetrators ofcorruption committed the offence, impact
of corruption and the involvement oftransnational organized crime groups incorrupt activities.
524

Secondly, sub-topic two required thisgroup to discuss the current provisions
against corruption and their judicial
interpretation. In every country in theworld, legalistic approaches are thedominant countermeasures against
corruption. Over time, laws are made andamended when the need arises, tostrengthen the fight against corruption. In
recognition of the role played by legislationin stamping out the menace of corruption,
this group exhaustively discussed issues
regarding the criminal provisions against
corruption, and a comparison of thecriminal provisions relating to corruption
between countries represented by thisgroup and their judicial interpretation.
Lastly, in sub-topic three this group
discussed and proposed effective domestic
and international criminal legislative
countermeasures against corruption.
Considering that current legislation
against corruption in the respective

113TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE
countries is inadequate, and also the needto intensify the fight against corruption,measures to rectify this defect by amending
existing legislation and creating better
legal provisions should be taken
immediately. Proposals for model domestic
and international criminal legislative
measures were discussed and proposed bythis group. Various international
documents were referred to during thediscussion in order for this group to comeup with better and more effective
legislative countermeasures, be it for
application domestically or internationally.
II. THE PHENOMENON OF
CORRUPTION, REASONS ANDBACKGROUND
A. Definition of Corruption
Considerable time was given in
discussion on whether to develop auniversally acceptable definition ofcorruption between the members. As it isextremely difficult, if not impossible, todefine what constitutes corruption, allmembers agreed to explain and illustrate
what constitutes corruption, rather thanto define it.
As the participants come from different
countries with different political systems,
criminal justice systems, cultural values
and beliefs, and levels of economic
development, to have consensus on adefinition of corruption is something wedared not endeavor to do. Nevertheless,members of the group agreed for reference
and guidance purposes to use the definitionof corruption of the Council of Europe:“bribery and any other behavior in
relation to persons entrusted withresponsibilities in the public...which
violates their duties that follow fromtheir status as public officials...andis aimed at obtaining undue
advantages of any kind for themselves

or for others”.
Actions by public officials whichconstitute corruption are as follows.
1. Bribery
The penal provisions of most countries
include the offence of bribery, where private
parties offer or promise money or otheradvantages to public officials in order toinfluence their decisions while exercising
their official duties or functions. Bribery
offences may be committed as variationsof deceitful acts such as attempts,
promises, giving, soliciting, or acceptanceof a bribe. Demanding, soliciting andextorting anything of value by public
officials may be called ‘active bribery’, while
accepting bribes can be safely be referred
to as ‘passive bribery’.
Another form of bribery is receiving
illicit payments. This situation covers
public officials who solicit or accept monies
in order to do something or not to dosomething which the official has, by natureof the official’s duty, to do or not do anyway.
These payments are often referred to as“speed money”, and are paid to public
officials in order to expedite a decision
making or other process, to cut ‘red tape’and bureaucratic delays.
2. Leaking Information
A situation whereby public officials giveconfidential information belonging to thegovernment to a particular businessenterprises or individual, which enables
that business enterprise or individual togain an advantage over competitors.
3. Abuse of Power
Whenever public officials abuse or
misuse their power and discretion for
personal benefit, or for the benefit ofanother person related to the official, suchactions constitute corruption. They range
from favoritism, nepotism and cronyism,

525

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
to illegal discrimination through misuse of
the powers and discretion bestowed upon
public officials. In countries where
privatization policies are carried out in theprocess of the liberalization of economies
and development, the wide discretionary
powers given to the public officials havebecome a ripe field in which to benefit
themselves and others related to them byabusing their designated power anddiscretion. Instances of public officials
awarding government tenders to theirchildren, buying stocks of companies thatthey know will be awarded a contract by
the government (the value of which will
surely go up), and disclosing a competitor’s
bid for public construction work, are allvery common in those countries engaging
in privatization policies.
4. Breach of Trust
Whenever public officials are entrustedwith power or anything tangible to beadministered, and he/she misuses that
entrusted power for personal benefit, he/she is committing the offence of breach oftrust. Public officials may divert publicmonies, funds, resources or properties tothemselves, their relatives, or to those notrelated to them. History has shown thatsome autocratic rulers and despotic
regimes are best known examples of thiskind of systematic looting of their country’s
wealth.
5. Conflict of Interest
This situation occurs when public
officials contaminate their decision making
process with personal interest, resulting inbias. These types of public officials
completely disregard their obligation to be
fair, impartial, trustworthy and efficient intheir public roles. Instances of public
officials taking part in decision making
processes affecting enterprises orcompanies in which their wives, children,
or siblings are shareholders or directors areexamples of this kind of corrupt practice.

526

6. Misappropriation of Public Funds
This situation occurs whenever a public
official dishonestly uses public funds orother assets of the government for theirbenefit or for the benefit of others not
authorized to receive them. Domestic andinternational financial institutions arefavorite places to hide the loot, taking
advantage of the protection of banking
secrecy laws.
Based on the above discussion, it may
be safely said that corruption involves two
main elements:(a) Receiving advantage, either economic
or non-economic, for personal profit,
gain and enrichment.
(b) Misuse of one’s official capacity, duty,
and discretion for personal benefit or
the benefit of others who have arelationship with that public official.
B. Aims of Corruption
All members of this group agreed thatthe aim of the perpetrators of corruption
may be classified into two categories:(a) Economic
The perpetrator of corruption can besaid to have committed that offence
for economic reasons, perhaps
influenced by insufficient income,greed, traditional customs ofaccepting gratification, enrichingthemself because of a limited tenureof office, and collaborating withorganized crime groups.
(b) Non-economic
Non-economic motives include apublic official’s desire to obtain fame,
power, or status through corruption.
This also includes cases where they
may be ordered by a superior tocommit corruption.

113TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE
C. Subject (Who)All members of the group were given theopportunity to discuss the level ofcorruption in their respective countries.
After extensive discussion, it was agreed
that corruption practices involve not only
low ranking public officials, but also those
who hold high positions in government.
Corruption among lower ranking public
officials may be called small scalecorruption and may cause little detriment,
but a high degree of severity of corruption
involves persons holding high positions.
Lower ranking public officials include
traffic police asking for money frommotorists who commit traffic violations,clerical employees who falsify overtime
claims, etc.
Small-scale corruption in some countries
constitutes the bulk of prosecution casesin courts of law, perhaps because corruption
by high-ranking government officials is
often more difficult to expose andinvestigate. Secrecy by certain
governments does not allow the law to takeits course to bring perpetrators to justice.
Bribery by politicians involved in votebuying was hotly debated by members of
the group. The argument was whether apolitician who contested an election, andwho eventually becomes a public official,
can be considered a public official. One
point of view is that a candidate in anelection is not a public official until andunless he/she wins the election, but he/she
is possibly a future public official. If thecontestant who engages in a vote buying
process is elected, his/her election iscontaminated by corruption. One who
resorts to corrupt practices is prone tocommit the same while in office.
Special attention must be given tocorruption amongst criminal justiceofficials, such as judges, public prosecutors,

and public defenders who are government
employees. If corruption is allowed topenetrate this area, it will destroy theadministration of justice and the public willlose confidence in the nation’s justicesystem.
D. Impact of Corruption
If corruption is allowed to flourish,
especially corruption involving highranking public officials, the nation may be
severely damaged economically. Business
opportunities and wealth will be restricted
to those who are connected to the ruling
elite, and this will reduce or eliminate
competition in the business sector.
Collusion and nepotism will become therule of the day. This in turn will lead topolitical instability, as well as depriving
citizens access to basic needs. The people
will feel frustrated and the general
population’s distrust will rise andeventually chaos will reign. Foreign
investment will also be curtailed if
widespread corruption is in place. This willaffect the country’s development.
Corruption directly increases the cost ofa transaction. If a business pays a bribe to
be awarded a contract, it will pass on thatcost to the purchaser. Prices skyrocket andthe purchasing power of consumers will
decrease.
E. International Dimension of
Corruption
All members of the group agreed thatcrime cannot always be solved with theeffort of each country alone. All social
phenomena have become transnational asa result of the remarkable progress intransport and communication. Crime,
which is the negative side of social
phenomena, is no exception.
Accompanying the internationalization ofcommercial activities, it is frequently
reported that companies offer bribes toforeign officials. It is been alleged, for527

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
example, that several major Asian
construction companies bribed officials inSoutheast Asia to obtain favorable
treatment of their bids on major projects.
With respect to organized crime, it canbe said that it is natural for crimeorganizations to move the main sphere of
their activities from their own country toother countries, to avoid strict control orin expecting more benefit. On the other
hand, the criminal justice power ofenforcement authorities does not extend
beyond national boundaries. This fact will
spur the internationalization of crime.
Corruption of public officials is no
exception. When a criminal organization
seeks enormous profits abroad, they needto avoid any control and get advantageous
treatment. Then temptation to corrupt
foreign public officials by crimeorganizations increases.
Crime organizations obtain enormous
profits in cooperation with otherorganizations through the smuggling ofdrugs or weapons, intermediation of illegal
immigration, traffic in persons etc.
Temptation of public officials who areresponsible for detecting such illegal
activities, e.g customs officers, immigration
officers, police officers, prosecutors andtheir assistants, judges and court officials
etc, is not only an international concern but
also a serious problem which damages thebase of each state. The main instances ofthis reported by members of the group are
as follows.
1. Trafficking of Illegal Immigrants
As Malaysia during the past nine years
has been enjoying an economic boom, it has
attracted illegal immigrants from
Pakistan, Bangladesh, China and othernations to come and work. It is alleged thatillegal immigrants use the services oftransnational organized crime groups for

528

transportation into Malaysia, andMalaysian registration officials accept
bribes from transnational organized crimegroups to issue registration cards. Becauseof the high incidence of this activity andthe difficulty of finding sufficient evidence
to bring the culprits to court, thegovernment has to use preventive
detention to detain those suspected ofengaging in this illegal activity.
2. Trafficking of Illicit Drugs
It is common knowledge that outlaw
gangs in Colombia bribe police, customs
and immigration officials to facilitate theeasy passage of narcotics throughVenezuela for distribution in the UnitedStates. Drug trafficking provides an
excellent, but appalling, example of the roleof transnational organized crime groups incorruption. The demand for cocaine has
resulted in a supply line that starts in the
Andean Mountains of South America, flows
through Latin America and the Caribbean,and ends up on the streets of almost every
city in the US. This demand and supply
process involves billions of dollars, some ofwhich is used to bribe public officials in
Colombia, where the coca plants areprocessed to produce cocaine, in Mexico andsome nations in the Caribbean, which aremajor transit routes, and in the US, thedestination of the drugs. The head of
Mexico’s drug enforcement agency wasarrested in February 1997 for drugtrafficking, organized crime, bribery, andillicit enrichment, and in August 1999
Mexico’s number two prosecutor was
indicted in the US for laundering morethan $9 million in drug payoffs through abank in Houston, Texas. In the US,
between 1992 and 1999, 28 Customs andImmigration and Naturalization agents
stationed along the US-Mexican borderwere convicted for a number of crimes
involving facilitating drugs crossing theborder. In fiscal year 1997, 150 law
enforcement officers in the US were113TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE
convicted of corruption-related crimes, overhalf of which involved drugs. These arejust a few examples of a much larger
problem of drug-related corruption
affecting many countries in the Americas.
F. Causes/Background of
Corruption
The problem of corruption is a problem
of systems and institutions, combined withhuman factors. Causes of corruption,
which are examined and discussed, are as
follows.
1. Lack of Transparency andAccountability
Transparency and accountability are
related to the right to information. Corrupt
practices, especially amongst public
officials holding political power, goesunchecked and undiscovered because there
are insufficient mechanisms to control their
exercise of power. The right to information
is sometimes curtailed through theimplementation of various laws that
protect disclosure of the improper exercise
of power and discretion. In order to expose
any wrongdoing committed, investigating
agencies need to have unrestricted power
to examine public records, financial
institution documents and other relevant
documents in the possession of theconcerned bodies. Nevertheless, in mostcountries, banking secrecy laws are themost common hindrance to investigation.
Corrupt public officials, especially in
dictatorial regimes, almost always avoid
prosecution by manipulation of theseloopholes in the law.
2. Wide and Broad Discretionary Power
Wide and unfettered discretionary powerin the hands of public officials can generate
temptation and motive for corrupt
practices. Without the proper mechanismsof transparency, and checks and balances,public officials will have ample opportunity
to take undue advantage of their powers.

Discretionary powers vested in public
officials opens the door of corruption.
Public officials may use their discretionary
powers as an instrument to seek illegal
gratification. Delaying processing certain
documents has becomes a very common
practice in government departments. In
order to speed up applications submitted
for approval, the public has to grease thepalms of public officials.
3. Monopolistic or Oligopolistic Situations
This situation means that in a given
market economy, one or a handful ofcompanies are given tasks to perform or
carry out specific development projects orprovide certain services. This happens
quite commonly in developing countries
that intensify privatization policies, andalso in the field of defence projects.
Controlling the market has become a tool
to commit malpractice, such as
overcharging, providing low quality work,
manipulating prices etc. Companies
hoping for a monopolistic market normallybribe public officials to secure specificdevelopment projects.
4. Low Salary
It is a common belief that poverty tends
to encourage public officials to commit
corrupt acts. With low salaries, they find
it difficult to attain a modest standard ofliving, so much so that they have to revert
to corruption to enhance their income. But
if corruption has become accepted in the
public sector, however much public officials
salaries are increased, the temptation ofcorruption will forever exist. However, one
may argue that this notion is notnecessarily true, since in developed
countries where public officials have very
high incomes and ample welfare,corruption among public officials still
exists. Thus, one may conclude that low
salary alone is not the real reason for
corruption, but is used as an excuse to
indulge in corrupt activities.

529

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56

5. Lack of Ethical Consciousness
Ethical consciousness is interrelatedwith moral values. Public officials with low
ethical consciousness succumb to thetemptation of corruption easily, comparedto those with firm ethical standards.
6. Greed Factor
This factor explains above all why highranking public officials and politicians withhigh salaries and adequate means are
involved in corruption. The pursuit of
personal satisfaction, which has no limit,
means that these kinds of public officials
never have enough, and corruption is the
only way to seek satisfaction.
III. CURRENT CRIMINALPROVISIONS AGAINSTCORRUPTION AND THEIRJUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS
A. Criminal Provisions against
Corruption
Summaries of the criminal provisions
against corruption in the respective
countries of these group members are as
discussed below. The specific provisions ofeach country represented in the group may
be found in the Appendix.
1. China
Corruption offences in China may be
divided into two broad categories, which
are as follows:(a) Bribery and embezzlement(b) Abuse of power
One significant difference between
China’s legal provisions on corruption andthose of the other countries of this group isthat the maximum punishment that canbe imposed by the court is death. If an
accused person is convicted of corruption
offences where the amount of the bribe or
embezzlement exceeds RMB100,000, a530

death sentence may be imposed, but is notmandatory. Even though the court has thepower to impose a death sentence, it is notcommonly exercised if the convicted canreturn the amount that has been taken. A
unit may be the subject of bribery
allegations, and may be punished if foundguilty. In addition, public officials whose
property or expenditures exceed theirlawful income, the source of which cannot
be explained properly, may also be
penalized. Corruption is becoming complex
and rampant as China opens its doors to amarket economy, so there is a need to enact
separate legislation to deal with corruption
effectively and to establish a special agency
to investigate and counter corruption.
2. India
There are two laws which deal withcorruption in India:(a) The Indian Penal Code (1860)(b) Prevention of Corruption Act (1988)
Both statutes seem to have similar
provisions, but under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, punishment is more severe.
Imprisonment under this Act may be a
maximum of 7 years, whereas under the
Penal Code the maximum imprisonmentthat can be imposed is 3 years. Minimum
sentences are also provided for, with orwithout fine.
It is to be noted that neither the word
“corruption” nor “bribery” is used in the
Indian penal provisions against corruption.
Instead, the word “gratification” appears
in Indian criminal legislation against
corruption. But neither in the Penal Codenor the Prevention of Corruption Act is theword “gratification” defined. The
Prevention of Corruption Act does notprovide for confiscation. Confiscation
proceedings can be initiated under the
Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1944.

113TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE
Although there is no definition of“bribery” and “criminal misconduct,” what
constitutes these offences are describedunder the relevant sections of law.
However, under section 169 of the Penal
Code there is a provision for confiscationof the property bought or bid for by a public
servant through misuse of their office.
3. Japan
Criminal provisions against corruption
are mainly found in the following statutes:(a) Penal Code(b) National/Local Public Service Law
The Penal Code covers the offences ofbribery, abuse of power, fraud, and larceny
by public officials. Prohibitions against
disclosing official secrets are found in the
National Public Service Law and also in
the Local Service Law. Public officials who
assume positions as directors or advisors
in private companies contrary to the law
may, if convicted, be punished under the
National Public Service Law.
4. Malaysia
Penal provisions against corruption may
be found in the following statutes:(a) Penal Code(b) Customs Act of 1967(c) Anti-Corruption Act of 1997(d) E m e r g e n c y ( E s s e n t i a l P o w e r )Ordinance No. 22 of 1970
In Malaysia, corruption was first madean offence in 1871 with the introduction ofa Penal Code copied from India by the
British colonial masters. These provisions
are still preserved in the Penal code. A
separate enactment dealing withcorruption was first introduced in 1938.
Since then, the specific legislation has been
the subject of numerous amendments, andin 1997 the government introduced theAnti-Corruption Act, which came into effecton 8 January 1998. Another feature ofcorruption legislation in Malaysia is theuse of emergency powers to combat
corruption. In order to tackle certain
practices which would have escaped the netof the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1961,
which was the predecessor of the AntiCorruption Act of 1997, the Supreme Kingof Malaysia on 21 February 1970
promulgated the Emergency (Essential
Powers) Ordinance No. 22, which is
popularly known as Ordinance 22.
With the coming into effect of the AntiCorruption Act of 1997, which is considered
to be the comprehensive law regulating
corruption practices, the government on 23
October 1998 passed a resolution in the
Dewan Rakyat (The Lower House of
Parliament) repealing the Ordinanceretrospectively from 8 January 1998. At
the time of passing of the resolution,
several prosecutions under the Ordinancewere still pending in the court. Arguments
were put forward in those cases as to thelegality of the charges under the said
ordinance, as the law was considered tohave no effect after it was repealed. In thecase involving the former Deputy Prime
Minister of Malaysia, the defence teamraised a preliminary objection that as theLower House of Parliament has repealed
the Ordinance, charges under theOrdinance were no longer sustainable.
After hearing arguments from theprosecution and the defence team, thelearned trial judge ruled that, as theOrdinance was promulgated under Article
150(2) of the Federal Constitution at a time
when a grave emergency existed, theOrdinance will only cease to have effect if
both Houses of Parliament pass a
resolution annulling such a law as
stipulated by Article 149(2) of the Federal
Constitution. As the Dewan Negara (theUpper House), which is the othercomponent of Houses of Parliament, has

531

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
not passed a resolution annulling theOrdinance at the time of the trial, it washeld that the trial was not a nullity andwas therefore sustainable.

Laundering Act which, inter alia, empower
the court to order confiscation, even though
the assets have been transferred to anotheror have changed form.

5. Palestine
Corruption offences in Palestine may begrouped into three different classes of
misbehavior:

There is also the Mutual Legal
Assistance Act and Extradition Act whichempower investigative agencies to provide
assistance to a requesting country tofacilitate the investigation of corruption,and to seek the assistance of anothercountry in bringing to justice perpetratorsof corruption who have escaped fromThailand and have taken refuge in anothercountry. The same principle applies viceversa to other countries which seek
Thailand’s cooperation.

(a) Bribery(b) Embezzlement(c) Abuse of Power
Bribery offences are stipulated underPenal Code No. 41 of 1944, by sections 106,
107, 108 and 109. The punishment
provided ranges from one to three years’
imprisonment, depending upon theseriousness of the offences committed.
Embezzlement is punishable under Penal
Code No. 57 of 1946, which carries amaximum of one year of imprisonment
upon conviction. Abuse of power andtyranny are dealt with under the same law,and can be punished with a maximum of
two years imprisonment.
6. Thailand
Legal provisions to combat corruption in
Thailand can be separated into two
categories:(a) The Penal Code(b) Supplementary legislation to rectify
loopholes in the Penal CodeApart from the prescribed punishment,
the court in certain offences can impose
confiscation of the property or assets
acquired through corruption. But thisprovision has it shortcomings, as it cannot
be imposed if the property or assets havebeen transferred to another person, or havebeen changed or transformed into anotherasset which is different than the original.
To rectify this situation, the Thaigovernment has enacted the Money532

7. Venezuela
There are two penal provisions dealing
with corruption in Venezuela:(a) The Venezuelan Penal Code(b) Organic Law for Safeguarding Public
Administration
Recently, political changes took place inVenezuela whereby a new democratic
government was elected after a long periodof corruption and a degenerative processwith a democratic mask. The Venezuelan
Parliament is in the process of enacting a
new constitution and it is expected thatwith the changes to the legal system, newlaws relating to corruption will be enacted.
B. Judicial Interpretation of
Corruption Offences
1. China
In China, a new criminal law which has
two independent chapters against
corruption just came into force two years
ago. It is new legislation, so almost all
definitions of corrupt activities are foundin the law. Judicial decisions relating tocorruption cases mostly focus on strategies
to tackle the recent trends of corrupt
activities and judicial countermeasures.

113TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE
Recently, with assistance from various
legal experts, the Supreme People’s
Procoratorate (SPP), China’s top criminal
watchdog, drafted judicial explanations
concerning 52 crimes related to corruption,bribery, dereliction of duty and the violationof the personal and civil rights of citizens,
committed by officials. The object of theoffences of bribery and embezzlement isrestricted to money or property only, and if
one accepts intangible things, such asentertainment, it is not considered a crimeof corruption.
2. India
Neither the word “bribe” nor“corruption” is defined in the Indian penal
provisions against corruption. “Illegal
gratification’’ is used to denote the offenceof corruption in the Indian Penal Code andin the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988.
Judicial decisions over the years haveinterpreted illegal gratification to include
all improper and selfish exercises of power
and influence attached to a public office orto the special position one occupies in publiclife. It has to be viewed from the entire
gamut of moral values, social ethics, andacknowledged norms of behavior in publiclife. In other words, “gratification’’ is not
restricted to pecuniary gratification, but
encompasses intangible things. Thus,
anything which affords satisfaction to one’s
mind or body, and does not form part of apublic servant’s legal remuneration and is
obtained as a motive or reward for showing
favor or disfavor in the course of theirofficial act, would be gratification. Elected
representatives, such as members oflegislatures, are public servants as held by
the Supreme Court. Trapping bribe-takers
red-handed is held to be part of theinvestigation, under a Supreme Court
ruling.
3. Japan(a) Bribe
The word “bribe” under the Penal Codehas been interpreted by the court as not
only restricted to tangible things, but also
to intangible things. This may include
money, interests, favors, entertainment,
etc. Examples:(i) Tangible Things
The case of a former Vice-Minister of
Health and Welfare who was accusedof having accepted cash of about 60
million yen from a director of a social
welfare company in return for giving
it advantages in distributing
subsidiaries. He was convicted by the
Tokyo District Court and sentenced
to imprisonment for 2 years andforfeiture of the bribe money.
(ii) Intangible Things
In the ‘Recruit’ case, high-ranking
governmental officials, including
political appointees, gave preferential
treatment to the Recruit Company inreturn for a special offering of stockof the company before its public
release. The court ruled that thebenefit of such an advantageouspurchase of such stock, which wascertain to increase in value, was abribe.
(b) Official Duty
The bribe must be taken or obtained bypublic officials in relation to their official
duties. In a Supreme Court ruling it washeld that “official duty” includes, but is not
restricted to, their designated duties.
4. Malaysia
Under the Malaysian criminal
provisions against corruption, the words“bribe” and “corruption” are not used.
Instead, the word “gratification’’ is foundin the Penal Code and Anti-Corruption Act
of 1997. The Penal Code does not define
what constitutes gratification, but underthe Anti-Corruption Act of 1997, the word
“gratification” is defined as:

533

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56(a) Money, donation, gift, loan, freereward, valuable security, property,
interest in property, being propertyof any description, whether movableor immovable, or any other similaradvantage;(b) Any office, dignity, employment,
contract of employment, or service,
and any agreement to give
employment or render service in any
capacity;(c) Any payment release, discharge or
liquidation of any loan, obligation, orother liability, whether in whole or in
part;(d) Any valuable consideration of any
kind, any discount, commission,
rebate, bonus, deduction or
percentage;(e) Any forbearance to demand any
money or money’s worth or valuable
thing;(f) Any other service or favor of any
description, such as protection fromany penalty or disability incurred orapprehended or from any action orproceedings of a disciplinary, civil or
criminal nature, whether or notalready instituted, and including theexercise or the forbearance from theexercise of any right or any official
power or duty; and(g) Any offer, undertaking or promise,
whether conditional or unconditional,of any gratification within themeaning of any in the preceding
paragraph.
In one celebrated case involving an
officer of the Immigration Department who
asked for sexual favors in return for
immediate processing of an application forrenewal of a passport, it was held toamount to soliciting gratification, which is
an offence under Section 4 of the oldPrevention of Corruption Act 1961. This
interpretation is still applicable for offences
under the Anti-Corruption Act of 1997,

534

since the content of both provisions is thesame.
Under the Emergency (Essential Power)
Ordinance No. 22, the subject of corruption
is in the form of misusing the office or
position for pecuniary or other advantages.
“ P e c u n i a r y a d v a n t a g e s ’’ h a s b e e ninterpreted by the High Court, in the caseof Public Prosecutor vs. Dato’ Tan Swee, tomean wrongful or undue gain, that issomething to which a person is not entitledor is not yet entitled to or is getting
something more than s/he is lawfully
entitled to. “Other advantages” also has
been subject to judicial interpretation. In
the case of Nunis vs. Public Prosecutor, it
was held that the words “other advantages”
includes favoring circumstances or benefitsof some of kind, other than pecuniary.
In the case of Public Prosecutor vs. Dato’
Seri Anwar Bin Ibrahim, the accused wascharged with four offences of corrupt
practices under section 2 of Ordinance 22.
It was revealed by witnesses that theaccused, while holding the office of Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Finance,
had used his position to order two police
officers to get retraction statements fromtwo persons, in order to save him fromembarrassment and criminal prosecution.
It was held that saving oneself fromembarrassment and criminal prosecution
amounted to “other advantages’’ stipulated
by section 2 of Ordinance 22.
5. Palestine
In Palestine, the offence occurs only
when the bribe-taker receives or demands
tangible things such as money, cars, land,
etc. Intangible things, such asentertainment, cannot be the object of abribery offence.
6. Thailand
Corrupt activities in Thailand can beclassified into two main groups. The first

113TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE
group can be called “misuse of power” or“abuse of power’’. The relevant sections
that may be grouped into this category ofoffences are 147, 148, 151 and 152. The
essential elements which the publicprosecutor has to prove are:(a) The accused or offender is a public
official; and(b) Such a person unlawfully andwrongfully exercises his functions fora particular purpose.
The second group can be termed“bribery”. Sections 149, 150, 201 and 202
are grouped into this. The essential
elements of crime in this are:(a) The accused or official is a public
official (including members of theState Legislative Assembly, memberof the Municipal Assembly, etc); and(b) The accused accepted, demanded, or
agreed to accept any undue property
or benefit for themself or anotherperson; and(c) For exercising or not exercising anyof their functions, whether such
exercise or non-exercise of theirfunctions is wrongful or not.
The Public Prosecutor, however, has theburden to prove a strong link between thecorrupt activities and the official’s
designated functions in both groups.
As for the offence of bribery, nowhere in
the Penal Code or any other legislation
defines the meaning of “bribe”. However,in the relevant sections, they use thewording “property” and “any other benefit’’
to express the meaning of “bribe’’. The
Supreme Court interpreted these twowords as interchangeable. The Civil andCommercial Code of Thailand provides thedefinition of “property” in this context:
property is anything, tangible andintangible, which an individual person or

persons can retain, having in theirpossession, and having pecuniary value,
can be sold or transferred to anotherperson. Thus, under the Thai judicial
interpretation, “bribe” is restricted topecuniary benefit, or to benefit that can be
estimated in money. Other forms of benefit,
such as entertainment, service or meals,
is out of the scope of the bribe.
To apply the law to a real situation,
however, is sometimes difficult because
there still is a legal vacuum in thedefinition of cash or property to beconsidered as unlawfully obtained. Thereis no any legislation in Thailand which
prevents a public official from receiving
cash, property or any other kind of benefit,
due to affection or appropriate amount of
reward on traditional occasions. Thus, itappears very often that the accused usually
argued that such money or property had
not been obtained corruptly, but was given
as a token of affection or as a reward.
Another controversial issue about
judicial interpretation, before the year
1999, was the interpretation of Sections 33
and 34, which stipulated the rule offorfeiture or confiscation. A Thai court
ruled that property forfeited by means ofthese sections should be property acquired
directly through the commission of an
offence. Thus if the property wastransferred, sold or changed in form, these
two sections are inapplicable. However,since August 20, 1999, the Money
Laundering Control Act has come into
force, and this kind of situation should not
be a problem anymore.
7. Venezuela
In Venezuela, the interpretation of“bribe” is different from case to case. The
principle of binding precedent is notapplicable in the Venezuelan judicial
system. The lower court is not obliged tofollow the higher court’s decision. This

535

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
situation has created inconsistency injudicial interpretation of the subject matterof bribery. Thus, both tangible andintangible objects can be the subject matterof bribery, depending on the judge’s
discretion.
IV. PROPOSED DOMESTIC AND
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINALLEGISLATIVE MEASURESEFFECTIVE AGAINSTCORRUPTION
Noting the increasing complexity andgrowing sophistication of corruption, as
well as the multiplicity and diversity of the
problems it creates at the national andinternational level, proposed legislative
improvement must be made to various
legislation, including criminal andprocedural legislation, administrative
regulations, as well as international
mutual legal assistance related provisions.
One can expect that in response to thenew measures or legislation, corrupt
activities will become more sophisticated.
Offenders always probe for weak spots inlegislation, seeking new avenues, venues
and persons to exploit. Reviewing,
modernizing and harmonizing existing
substantive and procedural legislation toensure their continued relevance, efficiency
and adaptability to the various forms ofcorrupt practices, including elaborating
and adopting new laws and regulations
designed to meet the challenges posed by
the complexity and sophistication oforganized crime and corruption, should be
carried out by every country on a regularbasis.
A. Domestic Substantive Criminal
Law
1. Punishment
To enhance their capacity to respond to
all forms and manifestations of corruption,
as well as to any conduct assisting or

536

facilitating corrupt activities, every country
should review their criminal legislationand identify lacunas in the existinglegislation and make necessary
amendments to rectify such defects. Everycountry should examine the inadequacy of
their penal sanctions in dealing withcorruption cases, which indirectly helps
this evil activity to flourish.
Existing legal sanctions against
corruption offences should be increased
substantially where necessary. Mandatory
custodial sentences upon conviction might
be necessary to reflect the government’s
policy in corruption cases. Mandatory
imprisonment sentences may act as adeterrent to committing the offence, notonly for the offender but also to the publicat large.
In addition to custodial punishment,
penal provisions should include the power
to impose fines. The imposition of fines
should not only apply to the bribe-taker,
but also to the bribe-giver. Courts should
be given the power to inflict substantial
fines, as nominal fines do not have adeterrent effect. The amount of fine thatcan be imposed should be equivalent to theamount received as the bribe, or a larger
figure, such as two or three times theaccepted amount.
Among the participating countries inthis course, only China and Vietnam
empower their courts to impose capital
punishment in corruption cases. The
question of whether capital punishment
should be provided for in corruption
legislation is a matter of policy for thatparticular country and should not be
subject to criticism by any other country.
Any sovereign country must be allowed tocarry out any policy that is consideredappropriate to suit its own domestic
situation.

113TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE
2. Subject Matter of Corruption
It was agreed by all members of thisgroup that the subject matter of corruption
offences may include monetary worth or
benefits, as well as indirect benefits suchas dinner, entertainment, discharging ofdebts, etc. Legislatures in every country
should consider legislation that defines
corruption as including such indirect
advantages. Experiences in some countries
have shown that without clear andcomprehensive provisions, there will beambiguity in the interpretation of the law.
3. Exercise of Confiscation or Forfeiture
It is commonly agreed that confiscation
has a strong deterrent effect on potential
perpetrators of corruption. Since
corruption is frequently committed forpecuniary reasons, taking away the fruitof corruptly gained assets, equivalentmonetary value, or the proceeds of thecrime, is an effective preventive measure.
In addition to imprisonment and fines,
courts should be given the power to impose
confiscation orders on the offenders’unlawfully gained assets or other property
that the offender cannot prove to be his/
her true and lawful property, and that noother person is entitled to that property.
In cases where the benefit or advantage
accepted by the accused person is notpecuniary in nature, such as sexual favors,confiscation orders can not be pronounced
by the court. In cases such as these, as a
substitute, the court should be given thejurisdiction to impose equivalent penalties
upon conviction of the accused.
4. Guarantee of Transparency
The lack of transparency andaccountability may facilitate corruption,
thus legislation allowing the public toaccess governmental information should be
introduced to guarantee transparency inthe management of public funds and in thedecision-making process, to ensureaccountability. Since corruption produces
distortions in the world of business, theestablishment of transparent andcompetitive procedures, such as unfair
competition prevention and anti-trust laws,
are deemed necessary.
5. E s t a b l i s h m e n t o f A n t i - M o n e yLaundering Laws
Corrupt public officials benefit frommoney or properties obtained throughillegal means. To avoid detection, in somecases, proceeds from corrupt activities arebeing laundered by corrupt public officials
in legitimate transactions. Existing laws,
such as penal codes, anti-corruption Acts,
and the like, are often not adequate tosuppress either money laundering or illegal
use of crime-related money and property.
Thus, in order to cut off this vicious circle
of crime, measures to effectively control
money laundering should be established.
In addition, to combat corruption more
effectively, all kinds of corrupt activities
should be included in the predicate offencesof the legislation against money
laundering.
6. Enhancing the Financial Institutions’
Role
Countries should consider introducing
measures or legislation to clarify the roleof financial institutions. Such legislation
might require the financial institutions to:(a) Identify, on the basis of official orother reliable identifying documents
and records, the identity of theirclients.
(b) Take reasonable measures to obtain
information about the true identityof the person on whose behalf an
account is opened or a transaction isconducted, if there is any doubt as towhether these clients or customers
are not acting on their own behalf.
(c) Maintain, for a certain period of time,
all necessary records on transactions,both domestic and international, toenable them to comply swiftly with537

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
information requests from competentauthorities.
(d) Report any suspicious transactions
to competent authorities.
In addition, to encourage the cooperationof financial institutions and theiremployees, there should be legal provisions
to protect them from criminal or civil
liability for breach of any restriction on
disclosure of such information, if theyreport to competent authorities in goodfaith.
7. Illegal Enrichment
Laws to apply criminal penalties topublic officials who appear to have in theirpossession valuable assets, goods andmeans that are clearly beyond theirfinancial remuneration, and who fail toexplain how they got the properties, should
be considered. See the OAS document
entitled “Model Legislation on Illicit
Enrichment and Transnational Bribery’’.
8. Limitations on the Activities of Former
Public Officials
In order to prevent conflicts of interest,
laws must be enacted, where they do notalready exist, that prohibit public officials
from taking positions that involve them
representing private or personal interests
before their former governmental agency
or department, within specified periods oftime.
9. Prohibition of Tax Deductions
Countries should consider legislationthat would prohibit tax deductions forbribes or other expenses related tocorruption, whether within the country
itself or internationally, as recommended
by United Nations Resolution A/RES/51/59,
dated 28 January 1997.
10. Criminalization of Bribery of Foreign
Public Officials

538

All countries should consider enacting
legislation consistent with theOrganization of American States (OAS),
Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD) and Council ofEurope (COE) recommendations relatingto criminal penalties against citizens who
bribe or attempt to bribe foreign public
officials.
B. Domestic Procedural Law
We recommend the following:(a) Provisions which promote banking
secrecy should be relaxed to facilitate
the investigating authorities
pursuing and gathering material
evidence to expose corruption. Manytimes, the effectiveness ofinvestigation is hindered because oft h e v e i l o f b a n k i n g s e c r e c y.
Investigating authorities should be
empowered by legislation to conduct
inspections and confiscate any
document, movable or immovable
property, in the custody of financial
institutions, which is suspected to be
the subject matter of corruption
offences.
(b) Investigating authorities should begiven the power of directing public
officials, who are suspected andarrested in connection withcorruption charges, to surrender all
travel documents in order to prevent
them absconding from the country.
(c) Every country should consider
reviewing and adopting provisions,
without infringing upon thefundamental rights of accused
persons, for the reversal of the burdenof proof in cases where the accused
appears to have in their possessionor have available, directly or
indirectly, goods or assets and meansthat are clearly beyond their normal

113TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE
financial standards.
(d) Introducing a Witness Protection
Law. Bearing in mind that witnesses
are frequently essential to law
enforcement authorities in collecting
evidence to prove allegations, andthat those witnesses may bethreatened by others involved, every
country should consider new
legislation, or review existinglegislation, in order to encourage andfacilitate the cooperation of
witnesses, including the introductionof witness protection schemes.
C. International Legislative
Measures
1. Mutual Legal Assistance Law or Treaty
Since corruption and money laundering
are global problems, the international
community should recognize that thesekinds of crimes have no nationalboundaries. Action by individual statesalone is inadequate to combat those
activities effectively. It requires a global
response. Failure to participate in aninternational effort is not neutral but
rather facilitates victimization of otherstates, including those which believe
wrongly that they can stay on the sidelines.
Thus, close cooperation between the law
enforcement authorities of each country,
through bi-lateral and multi-lateralarrangements, is urgently suggested.
International authorities should be given
responsibility for gathering anddisseminating information to competentauthorities about the latest measures being
used in corrupt activities by perpetrators.
Each country should review and expand,w h e r e n e c e s s a r y, p r a c t i c a lcountermeasures against corruption, inorder to coordinate with other countries
and relevant international organizations in
anti-corruption efforts. It is also
recommended that every country should

keep the issue of action against corruption
under regular review. All forms of corrupt
activities, including bribery of foreign
public officials, should be included in thetreaties for mutual assistance. The
requested country should not decline torender legal assistance based only on
financial secrecy laws. In another words,
treaties for mutual legal assistance must
prevail over the domestic financial secrecy
laws of the requested country.
2. Extradition Law or Treaty
Corrupt offences, money laundering,bribery of foreign public officials andrelated illicit activities, should be deemedby every country as an extraditable offence.
In case the requested country declines toextradite its own national who is soughtfor committing corruption offences, or who
is involved in money laundering activities
in the requesting country, the requested
country should submit the case, as requiredby its domestic legislation, to its competentauthority for prosecution.
V. CONCLUSION
The phenomenon of corruption has
become increasingly complex andsophisticated. In addition, corruption of
public officials is frequently used by theperpetrator as a primary tool to conduct
other criminal activities. Corruption
causes uncountable damage to our society.
It destroys every person, institution, andsystem wherever it can emerge.
Corruption is not the problem of any
individual country anymore, but rather aglobal problem which requires strong
cooperation among the various countries
to combat. Every country should recognize
its danger and urgently cooperate witheach other to suppress and eliminate thiskind of evil activity from our society. In
fighting corruption, the continuing processof reviewing, strengthening and enacting
legislative measures which are deemed

539

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
effective to prevent and control corruption
and related activities should be seriously
exercised. Harmonizing and modernizing
existing legislation, rules and regulations
to facilitate enforcement and enhancecooperation among the law enforcement
agencies, at both the national andinternational level, should be done
simultaneously. Every country must
devote its energy and resources to enhanceand expand international cooperation in
the fight against the evils of corruption.

540

State functionary

State-owned unit

Any functionary of a stateorgan

CL 395

CL 396

CL 397malpractice for personal gain

State secrets
Power or duty
Power or duty

heavy losses to publicfunds)

Property

3,4: property

Confiscation
3,4: property

Appendix I

1M to 10Y

1M to 10Y

1M to 10Y

3Y to 10Y

1M to 3Y

property

more than 5Y (for individual)
1M to 5YPart of exeeding

Fine (only unit) and not

Bribes1: Up to 2Y detention
1: Up to 5,000
2: 1Y to 10Y
2: 5,000 to 50,000RMB
3: 5Y to life
3: 50,000 to 100,000RMB 4: 10Y to death
4: more than 100,000RMB
Money or advantages
1M to life imprisonment
Bribes
Not more than 3Y

Punishment
Public money or
1: Up to 2Y detention
property and gift
2: 1Y to 10Y
1: Up to 5,000RMB
3: 5Y to life
2: 5,000 to 50,000RMB
4: 10Y to death
3: 50,000 to 100,000RMB
4: more than 100,000RMB
Public funds
1M to life imprisonment

Object / Funds

Other bribes for the purpose of Bribes
securing illegitimate benefits
Property exceeds lawful income Property
undeclared large bank savings
outside China
Divides up in secretState-owned assets(in the name of unit)
Abuses or neglects or engages in Power or duty (causing

Introduces a bribe to a statefunctionary

Bribes or introduces

CL 398
Any person
Divulges
CL 399 to 401 Any judicial officer
Abuses or neglect
CL 402 to 419 Any functionary of a state organAbuses or neglect

Any unit

CL 393

CL 389 to 391 Any person or unit
CL 392
Any person

Taking advantage of andmisappropriation
Accepts

Embezzles

Public servant

State functionary

Behavior

Subject

CL 385 to 388 State functionary

CL 384

Law 383,394

Country Section
China Criminal

Criminal Provisons against Corruption in Participating Countries

113TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE

541

542

Public servant abetted
other person
Public servant

Public servant

Public servant

Public servant

Public servant
Public servant

PC 164

PC 165A

PC 166

PC 167

PC 168PC 169Any person

Public servant

Public servant
Any person

Public servant
Public servant

Any person

PCA 9

PCA 10

PCA 11
PCA 12

PCA 13
PCA 14

PCA 15

The PreventionPublic servantof Corruption Act
1988 Section 7
PCA 8
Any person

PC 165

Any person

PC 163

Country Section
Subject
India
Penal CodePublic servant
1860 Section 161
PC 162
Any person

Valuable things without
consideration

Taking gratification to influence a
public servant by corrupt means
Takes gratification to exercise
personal influence with public
servants
Abets an offence under
sections 8 and 9
Obtain without consideration
Valuable thing
Abets the offence under
sections 7 and 11
Criminal misconduct
Habitually commits offences
under sections 7 and 12
Attempts to commit offences
under the Act

Abets offences under
sections 161 to 165
Disobeys a direction of the law(to cause injury to any person)
Frames an incorrect documentwith intent to cause injury
Unlawfully engages in trade
Unlawfully buys or bids forproperty
Takes gratification
Gratification

Takes or obtains

Up to 3Y or fine or bothTakes gratification to influence a Illegal gratification
public servant by corrupt orillegal means
Takes gratification to influence a Illegal gratification
public servant by corrupt means
Abets taking
Illegal gratification

3Y and fine

1Y to 7Y and fine
2Y to 7Y and fine

6M to 5Y and fine
6M to 5Y and fine

6M to 5Y and fine

6M to 5Y and fine

6M to 5Y and fine

6M to 5Y and fine

Up to 1Y or fine or both
Up to 2Y or fine or both

Up to 3Y or fine or both

Up tp 1Y or fine or both

Up to 1Y or fine or both

Up to 2Y or fine

Up to 3Y or fine or both

Up to 3Y or fine or bothPunishment
Up to 3Y or fine or both

Object / Funds
Illegal gratification

Behavior
Takes

Property

Confiscation

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56

Ex-public officer or
ex-arbitrator
Public officer

Public officer
Judicial, prosecutor or police
Judicial, prosecutor or police
guarding or escorting person
Judicial, prosecutor or police
guarding or escorting person
Gurding or escorting person
Customs official

Public official
Any person

PC 193
PC 194
PC 195.1,2

PC 156
PC 253

PC 246
Any person
PC 235
Any person
National Public National public officer andService Law 100.1 ex-officer
NPSL 103
National public officer andex-officer
Local Public Local public officer
Service Law 34.1 and ex-officers
UnfairAny person
Competition
Prevention Law 13

PC 101
PC 138PC 196

PC 197-4

Bribe

Accept with entreaty

Bribe

Let prisoner escapeStatusAggravation by reason of
Statusofficial duty
Drafts false official document
Authority
Embezzles in the conductof business
Fraud
Larceny
Disclose secrets obtained from Secretofficial work
Assumes position as director or advisors inprivate company or runs such a business
Disclose secrets obtained from Secretofficial work
Give, offer or promises bribe to Any pecuniary or othera foreign public official
advantage

Abuse authority
Authority
Abuses authority (special Public officer) Authority
Violence and cruelty
Status(Special Public Officer)
Aggravation by result
Authority/Status

Bribe (for exertion of influence) Bribe

Accept with dishonest act

Bribe

Bribe

Bribe

Object / Funds
Bribe

Behavior
AcceptA person to be a public officer Accept with entreaty
or arbitrator
Public officer or arbitrator
Causes to be offered to third
persons
Public officer or arbitrator
Accept with dishonest act

PC 197-3.3

PC 197-3.1,2

PC 197-2

PC 197.2

Country Section
Subject
Japan Penal CodePublic officer or arbitrator
197.1.1st
PC 197.1.2nd Public officer or arbitrator

1M to 10Y
1M to 10Y
1M to 1Y
Fine up to 30,000 yen
1M to 1Y
Fine up to 30,000 yen
1M to 1Y
Fine up to 30,000 yen
Up to 3Y or fine up to
3,000,000 yen
in the lcase of juridical person:
300 million yen

1Y to 10Y
1M to 10Y

1Y to 10Y
1Y to 10Y

2Y to 15Y

1M to 2Y
6M to 10Y
1M to 7Y

1M to 5Y

1M to 5Y

1Y to 15Y

1M to 5Y

1M to 5Y

1M to 7Y

Punishment
1M to 5Y

EquivalantConfiscation
Bribe or Monetary
EquivalantBribe or Monetary
EquivalantBribe or Monetary
EquivalantBribe or Monetary
EquivalantBribe or Monetary
EquivalantBribe or Monetary
EquivalantBribe or Monetary
Equivalant113TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE

543

Object / Funds
Punishment
Confiscation
Illegal gratification
3Y or fine or both
Illegal gratification
3Y or fine or both
Valuable thing without
2Y or fineconsideration
PC 213
Any person including public Accepts, agrees or attempts to Gratification to screening a 3Y to 10Y
servants
obtainperson from legal punishment
Customs Act Officer of customs or otherAccepts, agrees or attempts to Bribes, gratuity,
3Y or fine not more
137 (1)(a)(b)(c) persons employed for theobtainrecompense, reward for10 thousand ringgit
prevention of smuggling
neglecting duty
Anti Corruption Any person including public Corruptly solicits, receives or
Gratification to do or not Not less than 14 days and not more
Act 1997 10
servants
agrees to receive
to do any matter or
20Y, and fine not less than 5 times
transaction
the sum or value or 10 thousand
ringgit, whichever the higher
ACA 11(a)Any agent including public
Corruptly accepts, obtains or
Any gratification as
Not less than 14 days and not morethanofficers
agrees to accepts or attempts to inducement to do or not
20Y, and fine not less than 5 times
obtainto do any act in relation to the sum or value or 10 thousand
their principal’s affairs
ringgit, whichever the higher
ACA 11(c)Any agent including public
Knowingly gives or uses a false, Fraud
Not less than 14 days and not morethanofficers
erroneous or defective document
20Y, and fine not less than 5 times
the sum or value or 10 thousand
ringgit, whichever the higher
ACA 14
Any public body officer
Solicits or accepts
Any gratification for not
Not less than 14 days and not morethanvoting, preventing the
20Y, and fine not less than 5 times
passing of any vote in their the sum or value or 10 thousand
capacity as such an officer
ringgit, whichever the higher
ACA 15
Any public body officer
Uses office or position
Any gratification
Not less than 14 days and not more
than
20Y, and fine not less than 5 times
the sum or value or 10 thousand
ringgit, whichever the higher
ACA 20Any public officer or any person Attempt to commit offences
Not less than 14 days and not morethanunder the Act
20Y, and fine not less than 5 times
the sum or value or 10 thousand
ringgit, whichever the higher
Ordinance
Public officer or members of Uses position or office for
14Y or fine 20 thousand
No.22
administration
pecuniary or other advantage
ringgit or bothCountry Section
Subject
Behavior
Malaysia Penal Code 161Public servants
Takes
PC 164
Public servant abetted other persons Abets taking
PC 165
Public servants
Takes or obtains

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56544

Misuses power

Public officers

Public officers / politician

Public officers

Public officers

Public officers

Public officers

PC 148PC 149PC 150PC 152, 153

PC 154 to156

PC 157

Note: Y= years, M= Months

Public officers /(in judicial office)Public officers /PC 202(in judicial office)Penal Code 199 Public officer
Anybody
PC 200Public officers
PC 204
Public officers
PC 207
Public officers
PC 196
Organic Law of Public officers
Safeguarding Public
Administration 58
Public officers
OLSA 59

PC 201

Public officers /(in judicial office)Property or any otherbenefit
Bribe

Misappropriates

Public officers

Venezuela PC 200

Tyrany/Entering
without court order
Anything

Abuses authority

Public officials

Bribe

Demand,accepts(before being appointed)
Accepts
Gives
Does
Does notRequests
Misappropriate
Gives opportunity toanother person

Misappropriate

Bribe
Bribe
Power abuse
Power abuse
Extortion
Misappropriate

Bribe

Any kind of benefit

Demand,accepts

Misuses power

Misuses power

Evades taxes

Demand, accepts(before being appointed)
Embezzles

Bribe

Embezzlement

Embezzles

Public officials

Demand, accepts

Object / Funds
Bribe

Behavior
AcceptSubject
Public officials

Country Section
Palestine Penal CodeNo.41 (1944)
106,107, 108,109
PC No.57 (1946)
110,111PC No.57 (1946)
112
Thailand Penal Code 147
Confiscation

5Y to life
2,000 to 40,000 baht
Property acquired
5Y to death
2,000 to 40,000 baht
5Y to death
Property acquired
2,000 to 40,000 baht
Property acquired
5Y to life
2,000 to 40,000 baht
Property acquired
1Y to 10Y
2,000 to 40,000 baht
5Y to life
2,000 to 40,000 baht
1Y to 10Y or death
2,000 to 40,000 baht
1)6M to7Y
1,000 to 14,000 baht2)life or 1Y to 20 and
2,000 to 40,000 baht
Property acquired
5Y to death
2,000 to 40,000 baht
Property acquired
5Y to death
2,000 to 40,000 baht
3Y to 5Y
1/2 preceding article
15 days to 1Y
Fine, 50 to 1,500 bolivar
18M to 5Y
3Y to 10Y and fine
20% to 60 % ofmisappropriate money
3M to 1Y

2Y

Punishment
1Y to 3Y or fineor 200 pounds to 500
pounds or both
1Y

113TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE

545