This case is still under judicial investigation, but it illustrates well the erosion of trust associated with public office: Mr. K, a senior official at the Ministry of Economy and Finance, joins the Board of Directors of a major shipyard operator. He is under suspicion for having worked in the interests of the company while holding his public office – a company with which he has family and professional ties he avoided to declare. After the opening of an investigation for trade in influence and corruption, the Prosecutor's office received a statement from the President of the Republic Mr. M. discouraging the magistrates from pursuing the investigation against his loyal collaborator, who followed him to the Palace, where he has now become Secretary General. After the revelation of this undue pressure, and following the legal action of a civic society organization, the investigation has been reopened, and is currently not concluded... Mr. K is presumed innocent.
Whether criminal conduct has actually occurred is still unclear, various investigations have been initiated. The mask affair is a complexity of events of alleged advantage-taking by several members of two political parties, related with the procurement of protection equipment against the COVID-19 pandemic. In the wake of the pandemic, there was an increased need and shortage of protection equipment. Ministries were therefore in need of supplies. The deal became public in early March 2021 through an investigation by a well-known newspaper in the country. In total, the group around two MPs should have received 11.5 million euros in commissions for facilitating the ordering of breathing masks. According to the newspaper S. the money went to a Liechtenstein account of an offshore company. Investigations are also being conducted on suspicion of tax evasion. In May 2021, further cases of undue mediation became known. Politicians and related relatives brokered large orders of masks, receiving millions of euros in commission. Some of the masks ordered and paid with taxpayers' money, have been significantly more expensive than other masks: a specific region even bought masks worth 9,90 euros each!
Miss. S., who back then was serving as both MP and County Councillor, was convicted of allocating EUR 700.000 to fake associations which were fashioned to look like social outfits for disadvantaged youths or deprived neighbourhoods. Their members, in return, campaigned for her political election. More generally, the investigation revealed a clientelistic management of public resources, since one out of the four budget items allocated to her department was devoted almost exclusively to her electoral district. In this sense, the judicial enquiry focused only on a small part of the funds used for patronage purposes: the vast majority of these subsidies had been legally allocated to associations that really existed and were active in the area. In addition to the legal, there were political and administrative consequences: at the political level, the party lost the electoral district on the forthcoming elections; at administrative level, instruments were introduced to limit (or rather make explicit) the political pressure on the public officials in charge of approving applications for funding.
The head of the XX Party, L.D., has been sentenced to three years and six months in jail for instigating abuse in office. He was cleared of allegations of forgery in a case involving fake hirings at the Social Assistance and Child Protective Services Agency. Mr. D. has been accused by the Anti-Corruption Agency of having used his influence to get two women employed at the Social Assistance and Child Protective Services Agency in his home county. Thus, they would get a wage from the state without showing up at work, while actually working for the XX Party organisation in the county. The former head of the Agency and former employees have received jail sentences in the case. The former wife of Mr. D. was ordered to pay a (money) 1,000 fine in this case. The sentences issued by the High Court can be appealed.
The former governor of XXX, Mr. R.F., who was in power for almost 20 years, was sent to prison. The judges sentenced him to 5 years and 10 months for corruption. The prosecutor had spoken before the Supreme Court of a ‘massive corrupt deal’. The investigations, initiated in 2012, concern the diversion of public funds to finance two private hospitals, looking for profits, for 30 and 70 million respectively. The first case, however, is already time-barred. The conviction comes therefore for only one hospital. The prosecutor's thesis, confirmed by the Court, is that Mr. F. arbitrarily decided to allocate public money, after being bribed by lobbyists S. (former councillor for health) and D., his long-time friend. In particular, it was the latter who paid for his notorious yacht holidays. The judicial police had quantified the amount of corruption, i.e. the benefits received in about 10 years, to 8 million, then recalculated by the first instance ruling in 6.5 million.
In 2013, several cases of nepotism by Members of Parliament came to light. They had employed spouses as well as first and second degree relatives paying them with public money from their budget – which has been banned since 2000. Despite this, it was discovered that a total of 79 MPs continued to employ relatives and spouses at the state’s expense. Most of the parties in power were involved. The publication of this information in April/May 2013 initiated a large public discussion in the country. The existing cases had to be disclosed and the affected cabinet members were asked by the minister-president Mr. S to return the money. A stricter parliamentary law passed, banning the employment of one’s own relatives up to the fourth degree of kinship and other MPs relatives up to the third. Moreover, the existing employment relationships of relatives had to be terminated.
The sentence of five years and six months' imprisonment for G.B., the former president of the Court of XXX, has become final. The sentence was announced by the Supreme Court at the end of a trial initiated in 2011. The former magistrate was found guilty of embezzlement and corruption, while he was acquitted of the charges for attempted abuse of office and extortion of credit because they were already time-barred. Mr. B. had been accused of having created an illicit system to favour some friends by means of assignments and consultancies, and to benefit himself financially from these. In addition to the conviction of Mr. B., the Court decided to confirm the sentences to four other co-defendants, including the one against a freelancer, P.B., who was considered to be the judge's bribe-giver.
Police arrested 11 people following the scandal that disclosed the providing of ‘golden visas’ to foreigners willing to invest heavily in real estate property. They are suspected of corruption, money-laundering, influence-peddling and embezzlement. Inquiries were carried out at several locations, including the interior ministry. The Interior Minister Mr. M. told state television he was not implicated in the scandal but was resigning to preserve the credibility of state institutions. Mr. M.P., head of the country's immigration service, has been questioned by a judge on suspicion of accepting bribes, his lawyer said. Meanwhile, the country's government has defended the visa scheme, which in two years has brought in over 1 billion euros in investment.
A citizen, representing a private company, offered a €100,000 bribe to the Project Manager of a company developing energy projects. The bribe was offered in return for the company represented by the suspect to be declared the winner of a public tender for the construction of wind farms with a bid of more than 100 million euros. According to the pre-trial investigation, the suspect asked for approval of additional works in the project and wanted to obtain inside information on the projects, additionally, he sought that the company he represents would be favoured in the future as well. The citizen suspected of attempted bribery was arrested and remanded in custody under a written promise not to leave and bail.
In mid-2018, major media outlets in Country X publicised recordings that revealed the illicit collection of substantial commissions by a former monarch. These recordings also suggested the existence of Swiss bank accounts where these funds were deposited. Following these revelations, judicial investigations were initiated in both Country X and Switzerland. However, the public prosecutor's office in Country X faced a limitation: they could not probe incidents that occurred before the monarch's abdication, only those after it. After about two years of investigation, the prosecutor's office in Country X decided not to press charges against the former monarch. Among the reasons cited was the national constitution, which granted the monarch inviolability at that time.