When, if ever, is bribery legal?

Question

Bribing public officials, policemen, etc. to be corrupt in the execution of their duties is illegal. However, consider the following hypothetical:

"Robert Payne" is a wealthy businessman. While walking along the street one day minding his own business, a psychotic homeless man attacks him with a knife, yelling that Mr. Payne is the spawn of Satan and must be killed. Naturally, Mr. Payne defend himself, killing his assailant in the ensuing struggle. This is a clear-cut case of self-defense, with multiple witnesses and security camera footage from all angles.

Like many successful businessmen, Mr. Payne has his fair share of enemies. Thus, he worries that the next day's headlines will read along the lines of, "Multi-Millionaire Kills Homeless Man (Peers: 'He was always a pitiless bastard')."

Would it be legal for him to pay the various policemen and officials in the investigation to keep the incident quiet? Payne is not trying to keep them from doing their duties; he just wants them to do so quietly, without attracting unnecessary attention to the incident.

Edit: To clarify, I would like to know if bribery laws cover all payments to government officials in exchange for something, or only those intended to materially effect the execution of said officials' duties.

Answer 1

texas

Section 36.02 - Bribery

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly offers, confers, or agrees to confer on another, or solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept from another:

(1) any benefit as consideration for the recipient's decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise of discretion as a public servant, party official, or voter;

(2) any benefit as consideration for the recipient's decision, vote, recommendation, or other exercise of official discretion in a judicial or administrative proceeding;

(3) any benefit as consideration for a violation of a duty imposed by law on a public servant or party official; or

(4) any benefit that is a political contribution as defined by Title 15, Election Code, or that is an expenditure made and reported in accordance with Chapter 305, Government Code, if the benefit was offered, conferred, solicited, accepted, or agreed to pursuant to an express agreement to take or withhold a specific exercise of official discretion if such exercise of official discretion would not have been taken or withheld but for the benefit; notwithstanding any rule of evidence or jury instruction allowing factual inferences in the absence of certain evidence, direct evidence of the express agreement shall be required in any prosecution under this subdivision.

(b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that a person whom the actor sought to influence was not qualified to act in the desired way whether because he had not yet assumed office or he lacked jurisdiction or for any other reason.

(c) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the benefit is not offered or conferred or that the benefit is not solicited or accepted until after:

(1) the decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise of discretion has occurred; or

(2) the public servant ceases to be a public servant.

(d) It is an exception to the application of Subdivisions (1), (2), and (3) of Subsection (a) that the benefit is a political contribution as defined by Title 15, Election Code, or an expenditure made and reported in accordance with Chapter 305, Government Code.

(e) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree. Tex. Pen. Code § 36.02

Amended By Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. 9/1/1994.

Amended By Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 304, Sec. 4.02, eff. 1/1/1992

Amended By Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 3237, ch. 558, Sec. 2, eff. 9/1/1983

Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 915, ch. 342, Sec. 11, eff. 9/1/1975

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. 1/1/1974.

On occasion, publicising the details of a criminal case in the news media can assist the police in attracting the attention of the public to the case in the hopes of inducing a witness to come forward. In this case, there would appear to be no need of such inducement considering the availability of witnesses, recorded evidence and the perpetrator.

So, for a police officer to speak to a journalist about this case would be an act outside the scope of their duties, that may still occur due to a personal relationship between the officer and the journalist.

It could then be argued if 'Robert Payne' offered an inducement to a police officer to:

'Not speak of this matter to the news media unless doing so is a neccesary part of your official duties'

... is not a bribe because:

1. It does not request the recipient exercise discretion as a public servant.

2. It does not request that the recipient alter their decision, vote, recommendation, or other exercise of official discretion in a judicial or administrative proceeding.

3. It does not encourage a violation of a duty imposed by law on a public servant or party official.

4. It is not a political contribution.

As I wrote it, the inducement is for the officer to not perform an act that the officer might undertake outside of their official duties, and that if doing so was necessary for the officer to discharge their duties, the inducement should not apply.

This is no more a bribe than offering a police officer money for them to not mow the lawn of their personal residence before noon, or as an offer to buy their old bicycle. It is unrelated to their official duties, so is not bribery.

However, if 'Robert Payne' was to offer such an inducement, he should be very careful to make sure that it is on record (written or electronic) that the inducement is for the officer to not undertake acts outside the scope of their official duties, in case the inducement is misunderstood to be a bribe. First asking the officer if it is a necessary part of their duties to inform the news media, and receiving a 'No' response may be advisable.

Considering that to avoid media attention, 'Robert Payne' may also wish to offer inducements to the other witnesses, care would have to be taken to ensure that they, too, properly understood that the inducement was only for them to not speak to the news media, otherwise accusations of witness tampering could also result.

Answer 2

canada

This would fall under s. 121 of the Criminal Code:

Every one commits an offence who ... directly or indirectly ... gives, offers or agrees to give or offer to an official ... a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with ... the transaction of business with or any matter of business relating to the government, ... whether or not, in fact, the official is able to cooperate, render assistance, exercise influence or do or omit to do what is proposed, as the case may be;

Answer 3

According to SCOTUS, at the federal level, it is legal as long as the "quid" happens after the "pro quo" (or vice versa, depending on your phrasing).

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4754860-supreme-court-decision-bribery-law-corruption/

In Snyder v. United States, conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that federal law does not make it a crime for state and local officials to accept gifts or “gratuities” to reward their actions. Instead, he said it is up to state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials.

Answer 4

At least in some jurisdictions, I assume bribery would become legal if it is performed to protect a higher-level good. As a silly example, if you are the only person who can defuse a ticking bomb under a sold-out football stadium but nobody would believe you and you don't have a ticket, you could just bribe an official to let you in. That bribe would be the least necessary and sufficient means to prevent a disaster.

I'm saying "at least in some" because I assume that in some jurisdictions, the crime would for systematic reasons stay a crime but would simply not be prosecuted or be pardoned.

But in jurisdictions (e.g. many civil law jurisdictions) which demand that everybody provide help in need to third parties, I suppose nominally breaking a law would be covered the same way it is covered in self-defense.

Answer 5

germany

In Germany, it is prohibited for civil servants or government employees to accept any gifts of any kind at any time, during or after active duty, with limited exceptions. Therefore, the situation described in the question would be illegal for the recipient. This is independent of any service provided in return.

From § 42 of the Gesetz zur Regelung des Statusrechts der Beamtinnen und Beamten in den Ländern (law organising the status of civil servants in the federal states):

§ 42 Verbot der Annahme von Belohnungen, Geschenken und sonstigen Vorteilen

(1) Beamtinnen und Beamte dürfen, auch nach Beendigung des Beamtenverhältnisses, keine Belohnungen, Geschenke oder sonstigen Vorteile für sich oder eine dritte Person in Bezug auf ihr Amt fordern, sich versprechen lassen oder annehmen. Ausnahmen bedürfen der Zustimmung ihres gegenwärtigen oder letzten Dienstherrn.

Deepl translation:

§ 42 Prohibition on the acceptance of rewards, gifts and other benefits

(1) Civil servants may not demand, accept promises of or accept any rewards, gifts or other benefits for themselves or a third party in relation to their office, even after termination of their civil servant status. Exceptions shall require the consent of their current or last employer.

A similar law exists at the federal level.

More information (in German) on academics.de.

Employers can set exceptions to this rule, but exceptions are generally limited to cheap (less than €10–€20) gifts from colleagues, friends, or family members, and depend on context (for example, after graduation, students might be allowed to give flowers to a professor). In any case, they have to report it to their employer (current or former), who has to decide on a case-by-case basis.

Example how this is applied: Someone I know retired from a national meteorological service. As a retirement gift, a space agency he had worked with for decades gave him a small scale model of a satellite. He dutifully reported this to his former employer, but he was not allowed to keep it, and it is now collecting dust in an archive in his former employer's building.