“Corruption is poison for democracy,” said Zadic at the beginning of the press conference. With these “tightening measures”, the government is “decisively taking action against all those who permanently damage our democracy through corruption”. Minister Edtstadler took the same line. “Corruption should be prevented at all levels and pursued with the full severity of the rule of law,” she said.
Both ministers referred to surveys according to which the population sees a problem of corruption in politics. That is why the reform is so important. The reform was announced a long time ago, but due to coalition differences of opinion, negotiations had to take longer than planned. Edtstadler said that this would now become the “toughest anti-corruption law in the world”. But: “The presumption of innocence must be helped to achieve a breakthrough.”
Zadic: “Poison for democracy”
Justice Minister Alma Zadic (Greens) presented the draft law against corruption on Thursday. Corruption is “a poison for democracy,” she said.
Buying a mandate is also a punishable offense for third parties
In concrete terms, the change provides that the criminal liability for buying a mandate will be extended. In the future it will also be punishable for third parties if they buy “their candidate” a place on the list. “Normal” party donations are excluded. Zadic said that it was illegal “if, for example, oligarchs bought a desired MP for the National Council with a secret cash payment to party leaders”. Criminal liability begins as soon as the mandate (at federal, state and EU level) is taken up.
The aim of extending criminal liability is to prevent unelected actors from buying their way into domestic legislation. In the parties accepting the benefit, the person responsible for the corresponding list creation is punishable. At the same time, however, it should be ensured that the parties can continue to create lists freely.
There has been a suspicion in this regard in the recent past – namely that a mandatary was ranked first after donations from abroad and then actually got a seat in the National Council. This could not be proven, which is why the criminal investigations were also discontinued.
Corruption already punishable at the time of candidacy
Candidates who accept an advantage, i.e. money in the normal case, and promise an official business in violation of their duties in return are immediately liable to prosecution. If a candidate requests or is promised an illegal advantage, this will be punishable as soon as he takes office, regardless of whether the relevant official business is actually carried out. The Minister of Justice spoke in this context of “preliminary corruption”.
This regulation includes all people who are in an election campaign – and all other officials who have to face an application or selection process, including section heads. The document also mentions general secretaries, but these have not yet had to face a selection process. At the same time, Edtstadler made it clear that preferential vote campaigns were still possible. Even candidates who announced innovative projects would have nothing to fear.
Edtstadler: “The strictest anti-corruption law”
Chancellery Minister Karoline Edtstadler (ÖVP) was convinced on Thursday that Austria will have the “strictest anti-corruption law in the world” with the draft.
Penalties should be increased
There are also higher penalties for corruption offenses. In the case of bribery/bribery of a sum of 300,000 euros or more, the maximum penalty should be 15 years imprisonment. In the future, the following should also apply: In the case of a final conviction for a corruption offense, a final conviction to a conditional prison sentence of more than six months is sufficient to lose the office.
In the Association Responsibility Act, the maximum amounts of the penalty framework for the daily rates have been tripled from 10,000 euros to 30,000 euros. This would meet a requirement of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) – “Even companies must not get away with corruption offenses with impunity,” according to the government.
Associations are also subject to stricter rules: Cases in which the goodwill of politicians is to be bought, but the money does not go directly to them but to a non-profit association, were previously only punishable if the politician himself sets the tone in this association. Now this passage is extended to close relatives if they exercise “determining influence”. This means that circumvention constructions, where the wife or husband of the official (formally) plays a leading role in the association, are declared to be combated.
