The responsibility for handling proceeds of corruption in Polish criminal law
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/13590790310808736 |
| Date | 01 April 2003 |
| Published date | 01 April 2003 |
| Pages | 146-152 |
| Author | Janusz Bojarski |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
Journal of Financial Crime Ð Vol. 10 No. 2
The Responsibility for Handling Proceeds of
Corruption in Polish Criminal Law
Janusz Bojarski
After many years of work on drafts, on 6th June,
1997, the new Polish Penal Code
1
was passed. It is
just one of many statutes adapting Polish criminal
law to the reality of the free market economy and
includes provisions connected with economic crime.
One of the most important statutes in this area was
the Economic Crime Law of 12th October, 1994.
2
This law contained new oences criminalising beha-
viour that has a negative impact on economic activity
in the country. The law itself has been revoked, but
its criminal provisions have been included in the
new Penal Code. Article 5 of the law contained, for
the ®rst time in Polish criminal law, the oence of
money laundering. On the other hand, in spite of
the large number of political and economic changes
in Poland during the last ten years, the provisions
on corruption in the former Penal Code of 1969
and in the ®rst version of the new Code were
almost the same. The regulatory environment pre-
sented below is the one in force now and changes
of provisions are described only if important for its
interpretation.
CORRUPTION IN POLISH CRIMINAL
LAW
Traditionally,
3
oences are included in the ®eld of
corruption that consist of accepting or giving a mate-
rial or personal bene®t, or a promise thereof, in con-
nection with the performance of public functions, or
undertakings to intercede in the settling of a matter in
a state or local government institution. In the new
Polish Penal Code, which came into force on 1st
September, 1998 these provisions are placed in
Chapter XXIX: `Oences against the Functioning
of the State and Local Government Institutions'.
Other oences involving dishonesty, like theft or
embezzlement, are not counted as corruption. How-
ever, a new point of view on this problem has
recently been put forward. `Program Przeciw
Korupcji' (Anticorruption Programme Ð the opera-
tional programme of the Stefan Batory Foundation
and the Helsinki Foundation of Human Rights),
the main goal of which is to initiate and develop
public movements, seeks to develop public responsi-
bility and ensure that activity at all governmental
levels becomes and remains responsible and transpar-
ent. This programme de®nes corruption as any abuse
of public oce for private or personal pro®t. Kojder
lists the following forms of corruption: venality
(accepting a bribe), payment for protection, abuse
of oce, certifying of untruth, abuse of trust, bene®t-
ing from money laundering and preventing or
obstructing a public tender.
4
The new Penal Code
also carries new provisions connected with corrup-
tion in the private sector concerning relations
between creditors and debtors. These provisions are
placed in Chapter XXXVI: `Oences Connected
with Business Transactions'.
Oences of corruption in the sphere of the func-
tioning of state and local government institutions
are as follows:
Article 228. §1. Whoever, in connection with the
performance of a public function accepts a mate-
rial or personal bene®t or a promise thereof, or
demands such a bene®t, shall be subject to the
penalty of deprivation of liberty for a term of
between 6 months and 8 years.
§2. In the event that the act is of lesser signi®cance,
the perpetrator shall be subject to a ®ne, the
penalty of restriction of liberty or the penalty
of deprivation of liberty for up to 2 years.
§3. If the act speci®ed in §1 has been committed in
connection with a violation of law, the perpetra-
tor shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation
of liberty for a term of between 1 and 10 years.
§4. The penalty speci®ed in §3 shall be also be
imposed on anyone who, in connection with
his ocial capacity, makes the performance of
his ocial duties conditional upon receiving a
material bene®t.
§5. Whoever, in connection with the performance of
a public function accepts a material bene®t of
considerable value or a promise thereof, shall
be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty
for a term of between 2 and 12 years.
§6. The penalties speci®ed in §§1± 5 shall be imposed
Page 146
Journal of Financial Crime
Vol.10,No. 2, 2002,pp.146 ±152
#HenryStewart Publications
ISSN 1359-0790
To continue reading
Request your trial