Lithuania and Costa Rica joined the OECD Convention against Bribery

The Convention was adopted in 1997 and is initially aimed at countering one of the corrupt practices - the bribery of foreign companies to bribe officials of other countries in order to gain competitive advantage. However, its implementation involves the introduction of a number of mechanisms, the impact of which goes far beyond the narrow sphere indicated in the name.

At the moment, the Convention has been ratified by 35 OECD member countries and 8 non-member countries (including Lithuania and Costa Rica). The OECD website has already published reports on the passage of the ^1st phase of monitoring of its implementation by new members of the Convention.

In Lithuania, active and passive bribery is criminalized by the Criminal Code, which establishes liability for receiving, promising to accept or agreeing to receive, demanding or provoking the giving of a bribe (article 225), mediation in receiving a bribe (article 226), offering, promising, giving or agreeing to give a bribe (article 227).

According to the report on the country's passage through the ^1st phase of monitoring, judicial practice shows that, among other things:

the fact of offering, promising, giving or agreeing to give a bribe is considered criminal, regardless of the acceptance of the bribe by the official and (or) his/her subsequent performance of certain actions in the interests of the bribe-giver;
The definition of bribery in the form of other personal advantages includes, for example, provision of construction services and necessary materials for personal use, payment of bills, free organization of a trip to an international exhibition;
previously the norms of the Criminal Code, according to the official interpretation, covered cases when a bribe was given for the performance of actions (legitimate or unlawful), which a person has the opportunity to perform in accordance with his/her position. According to the latest amendments, the fact of giving a bribe is also considered a crime if the person receiving the bribe does not have the authority to perform the agreed actions in favor of the person giving the bribe.

According to Article 20 of the Lithuanian Criminal Code, legal entities may be held liable for an offense (including corruption) committed by a natural person if the natural person 1) has managerial functions and 2) performed actions in the interests of the legal entity. The legal entity may be sanctioned with one of the following liability measures: fine, restriction of activities or liquidation. The court may also decide to publicize the precedent in the media.

However, the OECD assessors have some doubts about the existing rules establishing liability of legal entities, in particular, the position of the courts that an organization must "recognize a benefit" or show interest in the consequences of the commission of a crime by a natural person is questionable. According to the authors of the report, this may become a loophole for evading liability: the organization may claim that the employee who committed the crime was an "exception", was uncontrollable and wanted to compromise the company by his actions.

In Costa Rica, liability for bribery is established by the Law againstCorruption and Illicit Enrichment in the Public Service(Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública No. 8422 ). Article 55 of the Law provides for: 2 to 8 years' imprisonment for offering, promising or giving to a public official, directly or through an intermediary, any remuneration, gift or undue advantage, for personal benefit or for the benefit of another natural or legal person, for using his or her position of authority to covertly influence a public official, or for using his or her position of authority to corrupt a public official.

For legal entities, the country has established administrative liability for bribery, with sanctions in the form of monetary fines, closure, suspension or liquidation of business, loss of tax benefits or exclusion from participation in public procurement.

Among the shortcomings of the existing legislation of the country, the authors of the report note, first of all, its uncertainty in relation to foreign officials (FDL): the absence of criminal sanctions for bribing FDL, the low effectiveness of only civil and administrative fines as measures to combat bribery of FDL, the lack of necessary information and resource support for law enforcement agencies in investigating cases of bribery of FDL.