AD ALTA
JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
Thirdly, by the time, several states adopted laws criminalizing
crime of commercial bribery. Illinois enacted criminal offence of
Commercial Bribery in section 29A of the 720 Illinois criminal
statute (“Illinois Criminal Code” or “720 ILCS 5”). Concept of
commercial bribery rest in a fact that employee accepts money
or thing of value from person other than his/her employer and
uses his/her position in a way that outside individual benefits
from it. The employee betrays trust of his/her employer.
Number of states adopted laws criminalizing bribery in sport.
Crime of bribery in sport is also prosecuted under federal law in
section 224 Bribery in sporting contests of the Title 18, United
States Code (“U.S. Code”). New York criminalizes bribery in
sport. Crime of Sports bribing is regulated in section 180.40 and
Sports bribe receiving in section 180.45 of N.Y. Penal Law.
Likewise, state of Illinois prosecutes bribery in sport in section
29 Bribery in contests of the 720 ILCS 5. Several states even
prosecute, failure to report bribe in sport, e.g. state of Illinois
recognizes the crime of Failure to report offer of bribe in section
29 (3) of the 720 ILCS 5.
Furthermore, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”)
addresses the issue of Bribery of Foreign Official. According to
the United States Department of Justice: “The anti-bribery
provisions of the FCPA prohibit the willful use of the mails or
any means of instrumentality of interstate commerce corruptly in
furtherance of any offer, payment, promise to pay, or
authorization of the payment of money or anything of value to
any person, while knowing that all or a portion of such money or
thing of value will be offered, given or promised, directly or
indirectly, to a foreign official to influence the foreign official in
his or her official capacity, induce the foreign official to do or
omit to do an act in violation of his or her lawful duty, or to
secure any improper advantage in order to assist in obtaining or
retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any
person.” (The United States Department of Justice, 2017) For
better understanding, general awareness and knowledge of law is
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act translated to 50 languages,
including the Slovak language. There are ongoing debates if
FCPA discourages US companies from investing abroad.
(Graham & Stroup, 2015) Some people oppose FCPA because it
puts American businesses at a comparative disadvantage or
permits unethical forms of payment equivalent to bribery.
(Seitzinger, 2016)
Also, the Constitution of the United States (“U.S. Constitution”)
refers to the corruption in article II, section 4: “The President,
Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be
removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of,
Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”.
Officials shall act in public interest rather than in interest of
individual for receiving unlawful benefit. On the other hand,
individual shall not benefit from using officials for his/her own
benefit. We find the respective provision of the U.S. Constitution
appropriate. Sanction of removal from office is adequate for the
highest-ranking public officials when impeached for and
convicted of bribery and other crimes, due to the functions they
represent. Namely, the President of the United States holds
executive powers. Conviction of enumerated crimes, mainly
bribery, hampers democratic values and undermine trust in
justice. This provision aims at preventing this from occurring. In
the U.S. Constitution there is much more similar provisions, e.g.
article 1 section 9 cl. 8.
Article 107 of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic (“Slovak
Constitution”) reads that the President of the Slovak Republic
shall be criminally liable only for intentional violation of the
constitution or for treason. The Slovak Constitution does not
refer to crime of bribery and consequently to removal from the
office. Article 107 of the Slovak constitution further states the
process of filing an indictment against the President. The
National Council of the Slovak Republic decide on the filing of
the indictment against the President by a three-fifths majority of
the votes of all members of the Parliament. The indictment is
filed by the National Council of the Slovak Republic at the
Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, which will decide
in plenary session. The condemning decision of the
Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic means the loss of
the office of the President and disqualification to hold the office
in the future. Similarly, Article 136 of the Slovak constitution
states: “The judge of the Constitutional Court cannot be
prosecuted for decision-making in the performance of his/her
office, even after his/her removal from the office.” Article 148
(4) of the Slovak constitution further reads: “Judges and lay
judges cannot be prosecuted for decision-making, even after
his/her removal from the office.” Article 78 (1) of the Slovak
constitution enacts similar framework for restriction of
responsibility: “The Member of the Parliament cannot be
prosecuted for voting in the National Council of the Slovak
Republic or in its committees, even after the expiry of his/her
mandate.” Likewise, article 78 (2) of the Slovak constitution
states: “The Member of the Parliament cannot be prosecuted for
statements made in the National Council of the Slovak Republic
or in its body in the performance of the office of the Member of
the Parliament, even after the expiry of his/her mandate. The
Member of the Parliament is subject to the disciplinary authority
of the National Council of the Slovak Republic.” It is clear, that
the President of the Slovak Republic cannot be prosecuted for
other crimes than intentional violation of the constitution or for
treason. However, the judges of the Constitutional Court, judges
and lay judges as well as the Members of the Parliament cannot
be prosecuted for decision-making, voting in respective body or
for statements made in the respective body. The above-
mentioned provision of the Slovak constitution refers to
substantial immunity, because these persons cannot be
prosecuted for decision-making, voting or for statements made
in the respective bodies, even after removal from the office.
Such protection of Members of the Parliament, given the nature
of the National Council as the supreme representative body of
the Slovak Republic, Constitutional Court and courts being
representative bodies of judicial branch of the Slovak Republic,
can be considered appropriate and desirable for the proper
government functioning. However, also procedural immunity
from prosecution is granted to certain persons, e.g. the Members
of the Parliament according to article 78 (4) of the Slovak
constitution. If the Member of the Parliament was caught and
detained in a criminal offence, the competent authority shall
immediately notify the chairman of the National Council of the
Slovak Republic and the chairman of the Mandate and Immunity
Committee of the National Council of the Slovak Republic. If
the Mandate and Immunity Committee of the National Council
of the Slovak Republic does not give the subsequent consent to
detention, the Member of the Parliament must be released
immediately. Mandate of the Members of the Parliament
according to section 81a (f) of the Slovak constitution ceases to
exist on the date of validity of the judgement when he or she was
sentenced for an intentional criminal offence; or was sentenced
for a criminal offence and the court has not ruled the conditional
suspension of imprisonment. Procedural immunity means that it
is not possible to prosecute person while he or she holds an
office, either at all or only with the consent of the competent
authority. Nevertheless, the person may be prosecuted after
removal from the office. Immunities are further regulated in
section 8 (1) in connection with section 9 (1)b of the act no.
301/2005 Coll. (“Slovak criminal procedure code”).
Constitution has the role of the supreme law. Laws shall not
contradict with provisions of constitution and rights and
freedoms set in the constitution. The U.S. Constitution, as well
as the Slovak Constitution, is source of all government powers,
being divided into legislative, executive, and a judicial branch,
with a system of checks and balances among the three branches.
The U.S. Constitution provides important limitations on the
government that protect the fundamental rights of U.S. citizens.
Having provision regarding removal from office of certain high
representatives on impeachment for, and conviction of bribery in
constitution highlights the values of society, importance of
eliminating bribery in public sector and strengthens the
democracy principles. Constitutional system of USA is unique
- 97 -