Turkish Company A, which is headquartered in Istanbul and involved in business transactions abroad, participates in a tender opened in Country B; and during the course of the tender process; the representative in that country gives 200,000 USD bribe to the Minister, to whom the tendering authority is affiliated, or to any other high level official to ensure that they will be awarded with the tender although their company does not fulfil the conditions stipulated in the announcement for tender.

Although there are other companies placing a bid and fulfilling the necessary conditions, Company A is awarded with the tender and a contract is signed.
The claims of bribery have broad repercussions in the national media of Country B. Two months after publication of the news in the media of Country B, the incident has repercussions in the Turkish media.

The Public Prosecutor of Ankara, by presuming the news on the media as a denunciation, has started an investigation regarding directly the company representatives, of the offence of Bribery of Foreign Public Officials. The offence can only be investigated ex-officio. Our investigation authorities, regardless of the existence of investigation or prosecution concerning the case in Country B, will act ex-officio about the company giving bribe. In this case, from the aspect of public officials of Country B who received bribe, the authority to investigate the offence of bribery naturally belongs to the judicial authorities of Country B.

Likewise, Article 279 of the Turkish Criminal Code provides for the obligation for public officials, who inevitably find out due to the nature of their professional responsibilities that an offense, which entails investigation and prosecution in the name of the public, has been committed, to inform the relevant authorities. It also renders that public officials failing or delaying in such reporting obligation shall be sentenced to imprisonment of six months to two years.

It is of vital importance for public officials working in institutions abroad to fulfil the notification obligation in terms of the offence of bribery of foreign public officials. Thanks to such notifications, the judicial authorities of our country could investigate such offences committed abroad but falling within our jurisdiction in an efficient and swift manner.

As a result of the proceeding, criminal responsibility of the company representatives emerges and if they are found guilty, they can be sentenced to imprisonment from four years to twelve years. Having regard to the aforementioned company, security measures provided for in Article 60 of the Turkish Criminal Code shall apply and the acquired benefits shall be confiscated.

In terms of constitution of an offence, there is no difference between provision of 200,000 USD bribe directly to a foreign public official and to his relatives for his favour or to a charity organization to be indicated by him.

Similarly, in terms of constitution of an offence, there is no difference between provision of offered or promised advantage to the public officials elected or appointed abroad or the officials of public institutions or bodies carrying out legislative, administrative or judicial functions, to public officials of international organizations such as the United Nations (UN), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) which have been established by the states, governments or other public organizations regardless of their structure and field of duty or to those performing duties having international nature in the same country.

With regard to the aforementioned offence, by the Convention as well as by Article 43 of the Law numbered 3568 on Certified General Accountancy, Certified Public Accountancy and Sworn-in Public Accountancy, general accountants, certified public accountants and sworn-in public accountants and their employees are obliged to inform the competent authorities of the acts constituting an offence which they found out in connection with their duties. Thus, members of that profession who are keeping the books of Company A have the liability of notifying the offence when they find out any illegal action or irregularity with regard to the amount of the bribe.

In the aforementioned case, in spite of the fact that Company A did not have the conditions to apply for the tender, it provided benefits to itself by giving bribe to a foreign public official in order to be awarded with the tender. Although the aforementioned Company had the conditions to apply for the tender and been awarded with the tender, legally, and it obtained a benefit only to facilitate the bureaucratic procedures, the offence of bribery of foreign officials would be constituted.

UHDİGM Resmi Web Sitesi © 2014 Tüm Hakları Saklıdır.
Webmaster : Selin Kılıç
Bu Sitede Yayınlanan Tüm İçerikler, İzinsiz Kaynak Gösterilemez ve Yayınlanamaz.