Vocabulary notes

to cite 1) ссылаться, цитировать;

2) вызывать в суд (преимущест­венно церковный)

to omit пренебрегать, упускать

to induce убеждать, побуждать, склонять, заставлять to induce smb to do заставить кого-либо сделать

smth что-либо

to presuppose предполагать

transgression проступок, нарушение (закона и т.п.) vice versa (Lat.) наоборот

functionary должностное лицо, чиновник

to opt выбирать

referee третейский судья, арбитр

obstacle препятствие, помеха

to throw obstacles in чинить препятствия кому-либо

smb's way

to overcome obstacles преодолевать препятствия

to perpetrate совершать (ошибку, преступление и т.п.); шутя, сотворить

to perpetrate a pun сочинить каламбур

whereas тогда как

qualified 1) компетентный; 2) подходящий, пригодный; 3) ограниченный

Text 3

As far as the actual moment of the commission of the corrup­tion crime is concerned, there are no major differences. What mat­ters is the collusive agreement, in the sense that the corruption is perfectioned when the passive actor does not expressly refuse the advantage offered to him. The fact that the promise is really main­tained is not relevant for the purposes of the commitment of the of­fence. According to German, Austrian, Greek and Danish legisla­tion, the legal interest that is protected by the corruption law is violated by the simple collusive agreement. The legal authority has only to prove the abstract relationship between the illegitimate ad­vantage and the performance or violation of the public function. Passive corruption involves the commission or omission of an act on the part of the passive actor.

With respect to an analysis of the sanctions, it can be noted that almost all countries envisage more severe sanctions for passive corruption since the beneficiary of the bribe holds a public office and therefore represents the state institutions. On the other hand, the same sanctions are envisaged for both the corrupter and the cor­rupted person in Italy, Portugal, Finland, Greece and Sweden. The penalties that are traditionally envisaged by all the countries studied are pecuniary sanctions and incarceration, the minimum and maxi­mum duration of which vary noticeably from one country to the other. The Netherlands and Portugal inflict the mildest sanctions for corruption crimes, with three and six months of imprisonment re­spectively. In addition to the traditional sanctions, several countries envisage additional sanctions. In Finland, Sweden and Greece the authorities can confiscate illicit proceeds and, in some cases, inflict disciplinary measures such as dismissal from work. If the profits gained from corruption cannot be found, the Romanian penal law imposes the payment of a sum equivalent to the benefit received on behalf of the corrupted person.

In the Russian Federation and Ukraine alongside the confisca­tion of illicit proceeds, conspicuous parts of the condemned per­son's patrimony are requisitioned. Austria, Finland, also envisage more severe penalties in the case of aggravating circumstances. In Austria, a circumstance is aggravated if the bribe exceeds 25,000 Austrian shillings, while in Finland an «outstanding» amount of money must be involved. In the remaining four countries mentioned above, recidivist behaviour, the involvement of con­spicuous sums of money, the corruption of experts, provocation, extortion and the particular role held by the passive actor, are con­sidered aggravating circumstances. Several countries also envisage exceptional circumstances in addition to the aggravating circum­stances. Austria and Denmark, for example, tolerate the payment of small sums for anniversaries.