Anti Bribery Policies have intervened on the repressive side in order to cope with the progressively changed appearance of the phenomenon of corruption in its political-systemic” dimension and to adapt the legal system to the standards of protection imposed by international law. It responds to the requests coming, in particular, from the Conventions dedicated to the fight against corruption (OECD Convention for the fight against international corruption).
In addition to an overall tightening of the sanctioning treatment, Anti Bribery Policies redesigned the case of extortion delimiting it to the conduct of the public official. Inductive behavior, on the other hand, is dedicated to the new figure of the indebted induction to give or promise utility, which sanctions, even with lesser punishment, also the private individual who makes the bestowal or promise.
The law has nevertheless left to the interpreter the arduous task of elaborating criteria of distinction between constricting and inductive conduct, opening the field to significant uncertainties and jurisprudential contrasts. The United Sections of the Supreme Court then attempted to draw the boundaries between the two cases to highlight the cases of the effective constraint of the private individual, who remains the victim of the crime of extortion.
This applies to those it maintains a margin of self-determination in response to requests from the public agent, deciding in any case to obtain an illicit advantage and, therefore, to participate in the induction undue payment.
The relationship between corruption crimes has instead been redefined following the widespread jurisprudential orientation directed at the loss of centrality of the act of corruption. The policies amended the case of improper corruption pursuant to introducing a general figure of corruption for the exercise of the function: it falls, therefore, the regulatory link of the utility given or promised to the public agent with a determined act of his office.
It is worth highlighting how the jurisprudence was already oriented, not without harsh criticism from the doctrine, to penalize as proper corruption the provision of the function or powers by the public subject. Now, instead, the systematic enslavement of the function to the interests of the private complements the crime of improper corruption when the object of the merchandise is constituted by the accomplishment of official acts.
According to the orientation recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, the more serious continues to be applied in cases where the provision of the function is configured (even or only) through the performance of acts contrary to official duties – although not predefined, nor specifically identifiable ex post – or omission or delay deeds of office.