Source: https://www.globallegalinsights.com/practice-areas/bribery-and-corruption-laws-and-regulations/greece
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 07:13:36+00:00

Document:
There is no clear legal definition of “corruption” in Greek Criminal Law; corruption is not only a legal term but also a social phenomenon. A criminal approach to the term, according to the Greek legal theory, includes all improper or unlawful transactions or trading relations, characterised by lack of transparency, and aiming at an inappropriate economic interest. Corruption is therefore terminologically connected with criminal law and specifically with bribery crimes, which incorporate all the aforementioned characteristics. Bribery crimes are described mainly in the Greek Criminal Code (GCC) and, in some cases, in special criminal laws.
The anti-corruption legislation covers an extensive scope of active and passive bribery in the public and private sector such as: active and passive bribery of public servants (Art. 235, 236 GCC) and judges (Art. 237 GCC); trading in influence (Art. 237A GCC); active and passive bribery in the private sector (Art. 237B GCC); several aspects of active and passive bribery of voters and political officials in national and local government elections (Art. 159, 159A, 165 GCC); active and passive bribery of foreign officials according to the OECD anti-bribery convention; active and passive bribery in sports (Art. 132 Law No 2725/1999); and active and passive bribery of national or EU officials against the financial interests of the European Union (Law 2803/2000).
According to Art. 235 GCC, a public servant who requests or receives for themselves or another person any kind of undue advantage, or a promise of such an advantage, in exchange for an action or omission in the future or in the past, within the exercise of their duties, is punished with imprisonment of between one and five years and pecuniary punishment of €5,000–€50,000. If the advantage is of high value or the act is committed habitually or professionally, the foreseen sentence is incarceration of between five and ten years and pecuniary punishment of €10,000–€100,000. If the actions are contrary to the public servant’s duties, they shall be punished with incarceration of between five and ten years and pecuniary punishment of €15,000–€150,000 and, if the advantage is of high value or the act is committed habitually or professionally, with incarceration of between five and fifteen years and pecuniary punishment of €15,000–€150,000. The same punishments are foreseen in Art. 236 GCC for the perpetrator in the active bribery of a public servant.
Furthermore, persons with decision-making or supervisory powers within an enterprise, who fail through negligence and by breaching a specific service duty to prevent a person under their command accepting bribes as a public servant or offering bribes to a public servant in favour of the enterprise, are punished with imprisonment of between ten days and five years. This can be challenging for the compliance and legal departments of an enterprise and may trigger further civil liability thereof.
In bribery crimes, the public sector is defined through the “employee” legal term, which is broader than the one of “public servant” and is described in Art. 263A GCC. For the purposes of Art. 235, 236 GCC (among others) an employee is, next to public servants, any person who serves: in a legal person of private law owned by the Greek State; in bodies or organisations of the EU; or in legal entities of private law which are subsidised by the Greek state or by legal persons of public law. This means that requesting or receiving bribery as an employee of a private company, which is subsidised by the Greek State, is considered to be “public sector bribery”. As a result of this broad definition of “employee”, Greek Criminal Courts have extraterritorial jurisdiction in cases of “public sector active bribery” (Art. 236 GCC), when the latter takes place abroad.
Passive bribery is also punishable when it takes place in the private sector, during the employee’s exercise of a business activity in breach of their duties as defined by law, employment contract or internal regulation. The foreseen punishment is imprisonment of between one and five years. The employee requests or receives the undue advantage for themselves or a third person in exchange for an action or omission against his duties. The same punishment applies to anyone who, during the exercise of a business activity, provides or promises an undue advantage to an employee in the private sector in exchange for an action or omission, in breach of the employee’s duties as defined by law, contract or internal regulation (active bribery). The scope of Art. 237B GCC underlines the importance of internal business regulation of an enterprise in identifying and prosecuting the employee’s breach of trust.
The passive and active forms of political bribery are described and punished in Arts. 159 and 159A GCC respectively. This covers the Prime Minister, Minister, Heads of the Region and other officials requesting or receiving an undue advantage in exchange for a future or already completed action related to the exercise of their duties (passive bribery). The foreseen punishment is incarceration of between 5 and 20 years. The same punishment applies to whomever promises or gives an undue advantage to these political persons in exchange for an action or omission related to their duties (active bribery). Not taking part in an election or poll, supporting a specific resolution, or voting in a particular manner in exchange for an undue advantage are further explicitly punished as forms of political bribery in their active and passive form, as hereinabove. Persons with decision-making or supervisory powers within an enterprise, who fail through negligence or by breaching a specific service duty to prevent active political bribery, are punished with imprisonment of between ten days and five years.
Passive and active bribery of judicial officials are described in Art 237 GCC, and cover the officials’ future or already completed actions or omissions, related to the exercise of their duties, in exchange for receiving an undue advantage or the promise of this advantage (passive judicial bribery). The foreseen punishment is incarceration of between 5 and 20 years and pecuniary punishment of between €15,000 and €1.5 million. The same punishment applies to any person who offers or promises this undue advantage to a judicial official for the aforementioned purpose (active bribery). Once again, persons with decision-making or supervisory powers within an enterprise, who fail through negligence or by breaching a specific service duty to prevent judicial bribery in favour of the enterprise, are punished with imprisonment of between ten days and five years.
Trading in influence is punishable according to Art. 237A GCC as follows: Whoever requests or receives, directly or via a third party, any kind of advantage for themselves or for another person, or accepts a promise of such an advantage in exchange for undue influence, that he asserts or confirms falsely or truly, that he is able to exert over political or judicial officials or public employees, so that they commit an act or an omission in the exercise of their duties, is punished with imprisonment of between one and five years (passive trading in influence) and a pecuniary punishment of between €5,000 and €50,000. The same punishment applies to whomever promises, offers or gives directly or indirectly an undue advantage to a person asserting or confirming, falsely or truly, that they possess the aforementioned ability, with the aforementioned purpose (active trading in influence).
Finally, bribery in sports is punishable under Art. 132 par. 2 of Law 2725/1999. It is prohibited to request or receive an advantage in order to influence the result of a sport (passive bribery in sports), as well as to provide or give such an advantage to players, coaches or referees in order to influence the result of a sport (active bribery). The foreseen punishment is imprisonment of between two and five years and pecuniary punishment from €200,000 to €2 million. Were the match to be indeed influenced, this would be construed as an aggravating factor and the act would become a felony (incarceration of between five and ten years).
If the damage caused to the Greek State exceeds €150,000 as a result of the bribery, the punishability of the act is aggravated. The foreseen sentence is lifetime incarceration. This severe legislation applies in most public sector bribery cases due to the low limit of €150,000, and the inflexibility of the Greek prosecuting authorities when estimating said damage.
Crimes which are punished with imprisonment are considered as misdemeanours and crimes which are punished with incarceration, felonies. According to the Greek Arts. 99–104 GCC, the punishment for misdemeanours (imprisonment) is most often suspended or converted to pecuniary penalties. An incarceration may also be transformed to an imprisonment upon acceptance of mitigating factors, and therefore further suspended or (more likely) converted to a pecuniary penalty. Otherwise, an incarceration sentence imposed by the second instance court must be served in prison, but a conditional release of the convict is possible after having served 2/5 or 3/5 of the imposed sentence. In cases of lifetime incarceration, a conditional release of the convict is possible after a 15- or 19-year prison sentence.
In Greece there is no special agency for combating corruption crimes like the British SFO. There are, however, special departments in the Public Prosecution Offices seated in the second (“Efeteio”) and first instance courts (“Protodikeio”) in Athens and Thessaloniki with the competence to investigate and prosecute corruption crimes, primarily in the public sector, according to the provisions of Law 4022/2011. The “Anti-Corruption Prosecutors” of the second instance supervise those of the first instance. They are all supervised and coordinated by a specially designated Prosecutor of the Supreme Court in Athens (“Areios Pagos”). The “Anti-Corruption Prosecutors” may also investigate and prosecute further cases specially characterised by the Supreme Court Prosecutor as “important for the public interest”. Next to the “Anti-Corruption Prosecutors”, the “Financial Crime Prosecutors” are competent to investigate and prosecute mainly tax and customs crimes. It is important to note that in Greece, the Prosecution Office is part of the judicial authority and Prosecutors enjoy a judicial status.
According to the Greek Criminal Procedure Code (GCPC), primary investigation in the pre-trial stage is generally conducted by an Investigating Judge. Law 4022/2011 further regulates that primary investigation in corruption crimes must be conducted by a specially designated, experienced judge (“Investigating Judge of Law 4022/2011”).
Bribery crimes are, by definition, basic crimes to money laundering. This triggers further liability for legal entities that have gained an illicit advantage due to the bribery, according to Art. 51 of Law 3691/2008 (in the current version of Art. 6 of Law 4506/2017), as repeated in Art. 45 of Law 4557/2018. Although legal entities cannot be subjects of criminal liability according to the Greek Criminal Law, the administrative liability described in this provision includes the imposition of an administrative penalty of between €50,000 and €10 million. Further administrative sanctions that may be imposed separately or jointly on the legal entity are: the closing of the enterprise or some sectors thereof from between one month to two years; the prohibition of capital-raising in the enterprise for the same period; the prohibition of opening affiliate stores for the same period; the exclusion of the enterprise from public tenders and contracts with the Greek State or other legal entities of the public sector for the same period.
Money laundering is, in most cases, a felony (Art. 39 of Law 4557/2018) and remains, according to the Greek jurisprudence, a continuous offence. Therefore, it is very difficult for the criminal action to lapse. Furthermore, according to Art. 39 of Law 4557/2018 (in accordance with the previous Art. 45 of Law 3691/2008), money laundering remains a criminal offence, even when the “basic offence”, from which the laundered proceedings derive, is barred by the statute of limitation.
During the last year, Greece has implemented the new Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing. The new Law 4557/2018 repeats the provisions of the Directive.
In 2017, Greece further implemented Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union in Greek Law 4478/2017. According to Art. 5 of the Law (equivalent to Art. 10 of the Directive), the Greek State had stated its willingness to establish national institutions allowing confiscated property to be used for public interest or social purposes.
A special Secretariat for the Financial and Economic Crime Unit (SDOE) was established in 2018, by virtue of Ministerial Decision No. 242/2018; its mission is to ensure the adequate management of property frozen with a view to possible subsequent confiscation.
According to Greek law, facilitation payments are considered to be bribery and hence not permitted. Greek law and policy regarding “hospitality” is not clear. According to the Greek anti-corruption legislation, there is no specific boundary to distinguish “permitted” from non-permitted illicit advantages. In that sense, any kind of advantage to which the recipient is not legally entitled, can theoretically be a bribe. An exception can be made, however, when the advantage is socially adequate and justified according to the special characteristics of each occasion. For example, it is acceptable for pharmaceutical companies to provide short-term accommodation to doctors, but not to the doctors’ families, when sponsoring a medical conference.
Prosecution in Greece operates under a very strict principle of legality. This means that Prosecutors do not have the ability to choose whether to prosecute or not, when they have adequate evidence regarding the defendant’s guilt.
There is no plea bargaining in Greece and once the prosecution is initiated, a judicial decision must be issued, either in the pre-trial stage or in a court hearing. This rather inflexible system leads to a great number of prosecutions and, consequently, a great number of court hearings. It is, on the other hand, not unusual for a court hearing to end with an acquittal.
There are some special provisions regarding the (Greek equivalent of) crown witnesses and whistleblowers in bribery crimes in the Greek Criminal Procedure Code and the Greek Criminal Code. Specifically, Art. 263B GCC provides some leniency measures for crown witnesses as following: active bribery in the public and private sector remains unpunished if the person, of their own volition and before being examined in any way regarding their act, reports it to the Prosecutor. Furthermore, if the person responsible for an act of bribery contributes substantially to the disclosure of the participation of an employee, they will receive a mitigated punishment and, in some cases, the prosecution may be suspended. The main purpose of these provisions is to punish employees who are, in most cases, public servants, and combat bribery efficiently.
Art. 45B GCPC concerns whistleblowers regarding bribery crimes. This new institution in Greek law, which was created in 2014, refers to persons who, unlike crown witnesses, have not participated in the illicit bribery act and wish to report it. Art. 45B GCPC provides them with the necessary protection, both legal and actual, from the actions of the persons accused for bribery crimes. The whistleblower status is granted by the Prosecutor of the Court of First Instance and confirmed by the specially designated “anti-corruption” Prosecutor of the Supreme Court in Athens.
Finally, in order to achieve efficiency in anti-corruption policy, Greek Law 4312/2014 offers a mitigated sentence, inter alia, in cases of bribery against the Greek State, should the defendant fully compensate the Greek State in the loss it has suffered due to their actions. This law is very important in practice because, if the damage caused to the Greek State exceeds €150,000 (which applies to most cases), the foreseen sentence is lifetime incarceration (Law 1608/1950). A mitigating sentence can therefore ensure the suspension of the sentence until the end of the procedure before the Court of Appeal and in the end, the release of the convict after a shorter period of time in prison.
In recent years, Greek justice has dealt with several serious, cross-border bribery cases, including the pharmaceutical and arms industries. As Greek prosecution and investigating officials had to cooperate with other prosecution officials in the EU and the United States, several cross-border issues arose within the procedure of mutual assistance in criminal matters.
Greek prosecutorial and investigating officials are not familiar with the principle of specialty in mutual assistance in criminal matters. They therefore tend to use the material received by the foreign prosecution office as they wish – and sometimes against the will of the foreign prosecution office. This judicial malpractice (due to a lack of understanding on behalf of the Greek authorities) has been confirmed, both in cases of direct translational mutual assistance between Greek prosecution and investigating offices and foreign prosecution officials (specifically between the Greek Investigating Judge and the Prosecution Office of Bremen, in an arms industry bribery case), as well as in Eurojust-governed mutual assistance between several prosecution officials (specifically in a bribery case in the pharmaceutical sector).
In both cases, the Greek authorities used the mutual assistance material in order to prosecute several persons, without the prior consent of the foreign authorities. In one case, this resulted in the prosecution in Greece of a British citizen for bribery, fraud and money laundering, who had already been convicted in the UK after having pleaded guilty and provided crucial material to the SFO, which was then sent to the Greek prosecution authorities for further investigation. The Greek Prosecutor and Investigating Judge used this very material in order to prosecute the British citizen in Greece, against the expressed will of the SFO!
Defence lawyers and foreign prosecution officials should therefore explicitly provide detailed instructions to the Greek prosecution and investigating authorities about the extent of usage of the material in respect of specific defendants.
According to Greek criminal law, legal entities cannot be held criminally liable. Although the so-called “administrative liability” does have a punitive nature, it is governed by administrative law and the law of administrative procedure. This means that imposed administrative penalties and sanctions can be challenged before administrative, rather than criminal courts.
On the other hand, legal entities can be held as “victims” of a crime according to Greek criminal law. This is very important because in the Greek Criminal Procedure Code, every “victim” of a criminal act (“everyone directly damaged by the crime”) has the right to actively participate in the criminal proceedings and be represented by a lawyer as a civil plaintiff. This is possible through the raising of a symbolic part of the civil claim against the defendant for moral damages in the criminal court. The rest of the claim is raised before the civil courts.
Recently, in several bribery cases in the public sector and the pharmaceutical industry, the Greek State raised such claims as a “victim of the crime”. These claims were accepted by the courts and the Greek State participated in the criminal procedure as “victim”, next to the Prosecutor through the lawyers of the Greek State.
In a recent bribery case against Greek and German officials in the arms industry, who had been employees of two German companies, the Greek State (participating in the procedure as “victim”), invited the German companies to participate in the trial as “civilly liable parties” for the actions of the defendants. This means that corporate entities can be named as quasi-“defendants” in the criminal procedure but within a civil action, raised before the criminal court. A “civilly liable party” is therefore not a criminal defendant stricto sensu, but they have all the rights of a participant in the criminal procedure, aiming to prove the innocence of the defendant, in order to avoid further corporate civil liability resulting from the actions of the defendant. This is a new trend in Greek criminal procedure.
In the next months, Greece will be evaluated by the FATF. Some amendments to the AML legislation are expected to occur.

References: Art. 235
 Art. 236
 Art. 263
 Art. 235
 Art. 237
 Art 237
 Art. 237
 Art. 132
 Art. 51
 Art. 6
 Art. 45
 Art. 39
 Art. 45
 Art. 5
 Art. 10
 Art. 263

Art. 45
 Art. 45