3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had been the victim of entrapment and that he had been denied the opportunity to examine a key witness in criminal proceedings against him.
5. On 26 April 2005 the application was declared partly admissible by a Chamber. On 19 September 2006 the Chamber relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, neither of the parties having objected to relinquishment (Article 30 of the Convention and Rule 72).
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
9. The applicant, Mr Kęstas Ramanauskas, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Kaišiadorys.
10. He formerly worked as a prosecutor in the Kaišiadorys region.
11. The applicant submitted that in late 1998 and early 1999 he had been approached by AZ, a person previously unknown to him, through VS, a private acquaintance. AZ had asked him to secure the acquittal of a third person and had offered him a bribe of 3,000 United States dollars (USD) in return. The applicant had initially refused but had later agreed after AZ had reiterated the offer a number of times.
12. The Government submitted that VS and AZ had approached the applicant and negotiated the bribe with him on their own private initiative, without having first informed the authorities. They alleged that AZ had suspected the applicant of having accepted bribes in the past.
13. On an unspecified date AZ, who was in fact an officer of a special anti-corruption police unit of the Ministry of the Interior (Specialiųjų tyrimų tarnyba – “the STT”), informed his employers that the applicant had agreed to accept a bribe.
14. On 26 January 1999 the STT applied to the Deputy Prosecutor General, requesting authorisation to use a criminal conduct simulation model (“the model” – see paragraph 32 below). The request stated:
“Senior Commissar [GM], Head of the Operational Activities Division of the [STT], having had access to information concerning [the applicant's] criminal conduct, has established that [the applicant] takes bribes since he has agreed to assist a defendant, [MN], in return for payment.
In implementing the criminal conduct simulation model, which is intended to establish, record and put an end to [the applicant's] unlawful acts, an STT official [AZ] would hand over 12,000 litai, in foreign currency if required.
Implementation of [the model] would require [AZ] to simulate criminal acts punishable under Articles 284 and 329 of the [Criminal Code].
With reference to section 11 of the Operational Activities Act ..., the undersigned requests the Deputy Prosecutor General to authorise the criminal conduct simulation model for a period of one year.
This request is based on the information obtained during the preliminary inquiry.”
15. On 26 January 1999 the STT sent a letter to the Deputy Prosecutor General outlining the model as follows:
“[STT] officials have collected operational information attesting that [the applicant] takes bribes.
In implementing the criminal conduct simulation model, which is intended to establish, record and put an end to [the applicant's] unlawful acts, an STT official [AZ] would simulate the offences of offering a bribe and breaching currency and securities regulations.
In view of the above, and in accordance with section 11 of the Operational Activities Act, I hereby request you to authorise the criminal conduct simulation model and thus to exempt [AZ] from criminal responsibility for the offences under Articles 284 and 329 of the [Criminal Code] which are intended to be simulated.
[The model] would be implemented by STT officials on the basis of a separate operational action plan.
Implementation of [the model] would be financed by STT resources.”
16. On 27 January 1999 the Deputy Prosecutor General gave the required authorisation by countersigning and placing his official seal on the letter in question. This document constituted the final version of the model.
17. On 28 January 1999 the applicant accepted USD 1,500 from AZ.
18. On 11 February 1999 AZ gave the applicant a further USD 1,000.
19. On the same date the Prosecutor General instituted a criminal investigation in respect of the applicant for accepting a bribe, an offence punishable under Article 282 of the Criminal Code in force at that time.
20. On 17 March 1999 the Prosecutor General dismissed the applicant from his post as a prosecutor on grounds relating to corruption. Referring to the relevant provisions of the Prosecuting Authorities Act, the Prosecutor General stated that the applicant had been dismissed for a disciplinary offence and activities discrediting the prosecuting authorities.
21. On an unspecified date the pre-trial investigation was concluded and the case was referred to the Kaunas Regional Court. During the trial the applicant pleaded guilty but alleged that he had succumbed to undue pressure from AZ in committing the offence.
22. On 18 July 2000 the Deputy Prosecutor General authorised a judge of the Kaunas Regional Court to disclose the details of how the model had been implemented “provided that this [did] not harm the interests” of the individuals and authorities involved in the operation.
23. On 29 August 2000 the Kaunas Regional Court convicted the applicant of accepting a bribe of USD 2,500 from AZ, in breach of Article 282 of the Criminal Code then in force, and sentenced him to 19 months and six days' imprisonment. The court also ordered the confiscation of his property in the amount of 625 Lithuanian litai (LTL). It found it established, firstly, that AZ had given the applicant the bribe during their meetings on 28 January and 11 February 1999, in return for a promise that the applicant would intervene favourably in a criminal case against a third person and, secondly, that AZ had entered into contact and negotiated with the applicant through VS.
24. The court's conclusions were mainly based on the evidence given by AZ and on secret recordings of his conversations with the applicant. The court had also examined AP, a prosecutor working in the same regional office as the applicant, whose evidence had not gone beyond confirmation that the applicant had dealt with the criminal case against the third person (MN) indicated by AZ. VS was not summoned to give evidence at the trial as his place of residence was unknown, but a statement by him, which had been recorded by the pre-trial investigators, was read out in court. However, the Kaunas Regional Court did not take it into account in determining the applicant's guilt. The court's judgment did not contain any discussion of the authorisation and implementation of the model.
25. On 26 October 2000 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment on an appeal by the applicant, finding that there had been no incitement and that the authorities had not put any active pressure on the applicant to commit the offence.
26. On 23 November 2000 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal.
27. On 27 February 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's cassation appeal.
28. On 27 March 2001 the applicant began serving his prison sentence. He remained in prison until 29 January 2002, when he was released on licence.
29. Furthermore, the prohibition on his working in the legal service was lifted in July 2002. In January 2003 his conviction was expunged.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
30. The Criminal Code applicable at the material time punished the acts of accepting a bribe (Article 282), offering a bribe (Article 284) and breaching currency and securities regulations (Article 329).
31. Article 18 of the Criminal Code in force at the time and Article 24 of the present Criminal Code (in force since 1 May 2003) provide that incitement is one of the possible forms of complicity in an offence and is punishable alongside other forms of assistance (aiding and abetting, organising, executing) in the commission of an offence. These provisions define an instigator (kurstytojas) as a person who induces (palenkė) another to commit an offence. The term kurstymas (which can also be translated as “incitement” or “instigation”) is normally used in domestic legal doctrine to define the notion of complicity.
32. The Operational Activities Act (Operatyvinės veiklos įstatymas) was enacted in 1997 and remained in force until 27 June 2002. Section 2(12) of the Act defined a “criminal conduct simulation model” (Nusikalstamos veikos imitacijos elgesio modelis) as a set of actions entailing the elements of an offence, authorised with a view to protecting the best interests of the State, society or the individual.
Section 4(2) of the Act authorised the initiation of “operational activities” within the meaning of the Act where:
(a) the authorities did not know the identity of an individual who was preparing to commit or had committed a serious offence;
(b) the authorities had obtained “verified preliminary information” about a criminal act;
(c) the authorities had obtained “verified preliminary information” about a person's membership of a criminal organisation;
(d) the authorities suspected activities by foreign secret services; or
(e) an accused, defendant or convicted person had absconded.
Section 7(2)(3) of the Act provided that the authorities could have recourse to a model only in one of the above scenarios, and then only on condition that the requirements of sections 10 and 11 of the Act were satisfied.
Sections 10 and 11 of the Act empowered the Prosecutor General or his deputy to authorise the use of a criminal conduct simulation model on an application by the police or the investigative authorities. The application for authorisation had to include, among other things, a reference to the limits of the conduct intended to be simulated (that is, the legal characterisation under a specific provision of the Criminal Code of the actions to be taken) and the purpose of the operation, including its interim and ultimate aims.
Section 8(1)(3) of the Act required the authorities to protect persons from active pressure to commit an offence against their own will.
Section 13(3) of the Act afforded the right to contest the lawfulness of evidence obtained by means of special techniques.
III. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL LAW
35. The Council of Europe's Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS no. 173, 27 January 1999) provides in Article 23 that each party is to adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary, including those permitting the use of special investigative techniques, to enable it to facilitate the gathering of evidence in this sphere.
The explanatory report on the Convention further specifies that “special investigative techniques” may include the use of undercover agents, wiretapping, interception of telecommunications and access to computer systems.
Article 35 states that the Convention does not affect the rights and undertakings deriving from international multilateral conventions concerning special matters.
36. The Council of Europe's Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime (ETS no. 141, 8 November 1990) provides, in Article 4, that each party should consider adopting such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to enable it to use special investigative techniques facilitating the identification and tracing of proceeds and the gathering of evidence related thereto.
37. The use of special investigative techniques, such as controlled deliveries in the context of illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs, is also provided for in Article 73 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 on the gradual abolition of checks at the common borders, signed in Schengen on 19 June 1990.
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
38. The applicant submitted that he had been incited to commit a criminal offence, in breach of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which provide:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an independent and impartial tribunal ...”
A. The parties' submissions
1. The applicant
39. The applicant submitted that his right to a fair trial had been infringed in that he had been incited to commit an offence that he would never have committed without the intervention of “agents provocateurs”.
40. The applicant accordingly submitted that the crime would not have been committed without the authorities' intervention.
2. The Government
42. The Government submitted that, since the Court was not a “fourth-instance judicial body”, it did not have jurisdiction to deal with the applicant's complaints, which related mostly to questions of fact and of application of domestic law.
46. The Government asserted that the offence would in any event have been committed without the intervention of the State authorities, since even before the model had been authorised, the applicant had clearly been predisposed to commit the offence. In support of that argument they observed that after the model had been authorised, the applicant had instantly accepted AZ's oral offer of a bribe and that the authorities had not subjected him to any threats or other forms of undue pressure. The applicant's guilt was aggravated by the fact that, as a law-enforcement official, he was perfectly aware that his actions were illegal. In conclusion, contrary to the position in the Teixeira de Castro case (cited above), there had been no incitement to break the law in the instant case.
B. The Court's assessment
48. The applicant complained of the use of evidence resulting from police incitement in the proceedings against him, in breach of his right to a fair trial.
1. General principles
49. The Court observes at the outset that it is aware of the difficulties inherent in the police's task of searching for and gathering evidence for the purpose of detecting and investigating offences. To perform this task, they are increasingly required to make use of undercover agents, informers and covert practices, particularly in tackling organised crime and corruption.
50. Furthermore, corruption – including in the judicial sphere – has become a major problem in many countries, as is attested by the Council of Europe's Criminal Law Convention on the subject (see paragraph 35 above). This instrument authorises the use of special investigative techniques, such as undercover agents, that may be necessary for gathering evidence in this area, provided that the rights and undertakings deriving from international multilateral conventions concerning “special matters”, for example human rights, are not affected.
51. That being so, the use of special investigative methods – in particular, undercover techniques – cannot in itself infringe the right to a fair trial. However, on account of the risk of police incitement entailed by such techniques, their use must be kept within clear limits (see paragraph 55 below).
54. Furthermore, while the use of undercover agents may be tolerated provided that it is subject to clear restrictions and safeguards, the public interest cannot justify the use of evidence obtained as a result of police incitement, as to do so would expose the accused to the risk of being definitively deprived of a fair trial from the outset (see, among other authorities, Teixeira de Castro, cited above, pp. 1462-64, §§ 35-36 and 39; Khudobin, cited above, § 128; and Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, §§ 46-47, 15 December 2005).
55. Police incitement occurs where the officers involved – whether members of the security forces or persons acting on their instructions – do not confine themselves to investigating criminal activity in an essentially passive manner, but exert such an influence on the subject as to incite the commission of an offence that would otherwise not have been committed, in order to make it possible to establish the offence, that is, to provide evidence and institute a prosecution (see Teixeira de Castro, cited above, p. 1463, § 38, and, by way of contrast, Eurofinacom v. France (dec.), no. 58753/00, ECHR 2004-VII).
56. In the case of Teixeira de Castro (cited above, p. 1463, § 38) the Court found that the two police officers concerned had not confined themselves “to investigating Mr Teixeira de Castro's criminal activity in an essentially passive manner, but [had] exercised an influence such as to incite the commission of the offence”. It held that their actions had gone beyond those of undercover agents because they had instigated the offence and there was nothing to suggest that without their intervention it would have been committed (ibid., p. 1464, § 39).
In reaching that conclusion the Court laid stress on a number of factors, in particular the fact that the intervention of the two officers had not taken place as part of an anti-drug-trafficking operation ordered and supervised by a judge and that the national authorities did not appear to have had any good reason to suspect the applicant of being a drug dealer: he had no criminal record and there was nothing to suggest that he had a predisposition to become involved in drug trafficking until he was approached by the police (ibid., p. 1463, §§ 37-38).
More specifically, the Court found that there were no objective suspicions that the applicant had been involved in any criminal activity. Nor was there any evidence to support the Government's argument that the applicant was predisposed to commit offences. On the contrary, he was unknown to the police and had not been in possession of any drugs when the police officers had sought them from him; accordingly, he had only been able to supply them through an acquaintance who had obtained them from a dealer whose identity remained unknown. Although Mr Teixeira de Castro had potentially been predisposed to commit an offence, there was no objective evidence to suggest that he had initiated a criminal act before the police officers' intervention. The Court therefore rejected the distinction made by the Portuguese Government between the creation of a criminal intent that had previously been absent and the exposure of a latent pre-existing criminal intent.
59. In the case of Sequeira (cited above) the Court found that there had been no police incitement, basing its finding on the following considerations:
“In the present case, it has been established by the domestic courts that A. and C. began to collaborate with the criminal-investigation department at a point when the applicant had already contacted A. with a view to organising the shipment of cocaine to Portugal. Furthermore, from that point on, the activities of A. and C. were supervised by the criminal-investigation department, the prosecution service having been informed of the operation. Finally, the authorities had good reasons for suspecting the applicant of wishing to mount a drug-trafficking operation. These factors establish a clear distinction between the present case and Teixeira de Castro, and show that A. and C. cannot be described as agents provocateurs. As the domestic courts pointed out, as in Lüdi [Lüdi v. Switzerland, judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238], their activities did not exceed those of undercover agents.”
60. The Court has also held that where an accused asserts that he was incited to commit an offence, the criminal courts must carry out a careful examination of the material in the file, since for the trial to be fair within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, all evidence obtained as a result of police incitement must be excluded. This is especially true where the police operation took place without a sufficient legal framework or adequate safeguards (see Khudobin, cited above, §§ 133-135).
61. Lastly, where the information disclosed by the prosecution authorities does not enable the Court to conclude whether the applicant was subjected to police incitement, it is essential that the Court examine the procedure whereby the plea of incitement was determined in each case in order to ensure that the rights of the defence were adequately protected, in particular the right to adversarial proceedings and to equality of arms (see Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98, §§ 46-48, ECHR 2004-X, and, mutatis mutandis, Jasper v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27052/95, §§ 50 and 58, 16 February 2000).
2. Application of these principles in the present case
62. It appears from the evidence in the present case that a request for authorisation to use a criminal conduct simulation model, together with a request for exemption from criminal responsibility, was made by the STT on 26 January 1999, by which time AZ had already contacted the applicant through VS and the applicant had apparently agreed to seek to have a third person acquitted in return for a bribe of USD 3,000. In the Government's submission, that sequence of events showed that VS and AZ had acted on their own private initiative without having first informed the authorities. By authorising and implementing the model, they argued, the prosecuting authorities had merely put themselves in a position to establish an offence which the applicant had already planned to commit. They had therefore not been guilty of incitement.
63. The Court is unable to accept such reasoning. The national authorities cannot be exempted from their responsibility for the actions of police officers by simply arguing that, although carrying out police duties, the officers were acting “in a private capacity”. It is particularly important that the authorities should assume responsibility as the initial phase of the operation, namely the acts carried out up to 27 January 1999, took place in the absence of any legal framework or judicial authorisation. Furthermore, by authorising the use of the model and exempting AZ from all criminal responsibility, the authorities legitimised the preliminary phase ex post facto and made use of its results.
64. Moreover, no satisfactory explanation has been provided as to what reasons or personal motives could have led AZ to approach the applicant on his own initiative without bringing the matter to the attention of his superiors, or why he was not prosecuted for his acts during this preliminary phase. On this point, the Government simply referred to the fact that all the relevant documents had been destroyed.
65. It follows that the Lithuanian authorities' responsibility was engaged under the Convention for the actions of AZ and VS prior to the authorisation of the model. To hold otherwise would open the way to abuses and arbitrariness by allowing the applicable principles to be circumvented through the “privatisation” of police incitement.
66. The Court must therefore examine whether the actions complained of by the applicant, which were attributable to the authorities, amounted to incitement prohibited by Article 6.
67. To ascertain whether or not AZ and VS confined themselves to “investigating criminal activity in an essentially passive manner”, the Court must have regard to the following considerations. Firstly, there is no evidence that the applicant had committed any offences beforehand, in particular corruption-related offences. Secondly, as is shown by the recordings of telephone calls, all the meetings between the applicant and AZ took place on the latter's initiative, a fact that appears to contradict the Government's argument that the authorities did not subject the applicant to any pressure or threats. On the contrary, through the contact established on the initiative of AZ and VS, the applicant seems to have been subjected to blatant prompting on their part to perform criminal acts, although there was no objective evidence – other than rumours – to suggest that he had been intending to engage in such activity.
68. These considerations are sufficient for the Court to conclude that the actions of the individuals in question went beyond the mere passive investigation of existing criminal activity.
69. Article 6 of the Convention will be complied with only if the applicant was effectively able to raise the issue of incitement during his trial, whether by means of an objection or otherwise. It is therefore not sufficient for these purposes, contrary to what the Government maintained, that general safeguards should have been observed, such as equality of arms or the rights of the defence.
70. It falls to the prosecution to prove that there was no incitement, provided that the defendant's allegations are not wholly improbable. In the absence of any such proof, it is the task of the judicial authorities to examine the facts of the case and to take the necessary steps to uncover the truth in order to determine whether there was any incitement. Should they find that there was, they must draw inferences in accordance with the Convention (see the Court's case-law cited in paragraphs 49-61 above).
71. The Court observes that throughout the proceedings the applicant maintained that he had been incited to commit the offence. Accordingly, the domestic authorities and courts should at the very least have undertaken a thorough examination – as, indeed, the Constitutional Court urged in its judgment of 8 May 2000 – of whether the prosecuting authorities had gone beyond the limits authorised by the criminal conduct simulation model (see paragraph 14 above), in other words whether or not they had incited the commission of a criminal act. To that end, they should have established in particular the reasons why the operation had been mounted, the extent of the police's involvement in the offence and the nature of any incitement or pressure to which the applicant had been subjected. This was especially important having regard to the fact that VS, who had originally introduced AZ to the applicant and who appears to have played a significant role in the events leading up to the giving of the bribe, was never called as a witness in the case since he could not be traced. The applicant should have had the opportunity to state his case on each of these points.
72. However, the domestic authorities denied that there had been any police incitement and took no steps at judicial level to carry out a serious examination of the applicant's allegations to that effect. More specifically, they did not make any attempt to clarify the role played by the protagonists in the present case, including the reasons for AZ's private initiative in the preliminary phase, despite the fact that the applicant's conviction was based on the evidence obtained as a result of the police incitement of which he complained.
Indeed, the Supreme Court found that there was no need to exclude such evidence since it corroborated the applicant's guilt, which he himself had acknowledged. Once his guilt had been established, the question whether there had been any outside influence on his intention to commit the offence had become irrelevant. However, a confession to an offence committed as a result of incitement cannot eradicate either the incitement or its effects.
73. In conclusion, while being mindful of the importance and the difficulties of the task of investigating offences, the Court considers, having regard to the foregoing, that the actions of AZ and VS had the effect of inciting the applicant to commit the offence of which he was convicted and that there is no indication that the offence would have been committed without their intervention. In view of such intervention and its use in the impugned criminal proceedings, the applicant's trial was deprived of the fairness required by Article 6 of the Convention.
74. There has therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
81. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
82. The applicant firstly claimed the sum of 123,283.69 Lithuanian litai (LTL – approximately 35,652 euros (EUR)) for loss of earnings during the period from 11 February 1999 to 29 January 2002, on the basis of a gross monthly salary of LTL 3,472.78 (approximately EUR 1,000). He claimed a further sum of LTL 3,524.60 (approximately EUR 1,021) for the costs incurred in the domestic proceedings, including LTL 3,500 for fees (approximately EUR 1,013.67). Lastly, he sought the reimbursement of LTL 625 (approximately EUR 181) in relation to the confiscation of his property and LTL 420 (approximately EUR 121) for translation costs.
83. The applicant also claimed LTL 300,000 (approximately EUR 86,755) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, on account of the media campaign against him, the harm to his reputation and the anxiety experienced during his ten months in detention.
87. The Court considers that it would be equitable to make an award in respect of damage. The documents in the case file suggest that the applicant would not have been imprisoned or dismissed from his post in the legal service if the incitement in issue had not occurred. His loss of earnings was actual, and the Government did not dispute this.
In quantifying the damage sustained, the Court considers that it should also take into consideration part of the applicant's costs in the national courts to the extent that they were incurred in seeking redress for the violation it has found (see Dactylidi v. Greece, no. 52903/99, § 61, 27 March 2003, and Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, judgment of 19 April 1994, Series A no. 288, p. 21, § 66).
Likewise, the Court considers that the applicant indisputably sustained non-pecuniary damage, which cannot be compensated for by the mere finding of a violation.
88. Having regard to the diversity of factors to be taken into consideration for the purposes of calculating the damage and to the nature of the case, the Court considers it appropriate to award, on an equitable basis, an aggregate sum which takes account of the various considerations referred to above (see mutatis mutandis, Beyeler v. Italy (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 33202/96, § 26, 28 May 2002). It therefore awards the applicant EUR 30,000 in compensation for the damage sustained, including the costs incurred at domestic level, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount.
B. Default interest
89. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 30,000 (thirty thousand euros) in respect of damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into Lithuanian litai at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
Ustawa o Centralnym Biurze Antykorupcyjnym
z dnia 9 czerwca 2006 r. (Dz.U. Nr 104, poz. 708)
Rozdział 1. Przepisy ogólne
Art. 1. 1. Tworzy się Centralne Biuro Antykorupcyjne, zwane dalej „CBA”, jako służbę specjalną do spraw zwalczania korupcji w życiu publicznym i gospodarczym, w szczególności w instytucjach państwowych i samorządowych, a także do zwalczania działalności godzącej w interesy ekonomiczne państwa.
2. Nazwa Centralne Biuro Antykorupcyjne i jej skrót „CBA” przysługuje wyłącznie Centralnemu Biuru Antykorupcyjnemu.
3. Korupcją, w rozumieniu ustawy, jest obiecywanie, proponowanie, wręczanie, żądanie, przyjmowanie przez jakąkolwiek osobę, bezpośrednio lub pośrednio, jakiejkolwiek nienależnej korzyści majątkowej, osobistej lub innej, dla niej samej lub jakiejkolwiek innej osoby, lub przyjmowanie propozycji lub obietnicy takich korzyści w zamian za działanie lub zaniechanie działania w wykonywaniu funkcji publicznej lub w toku działalności gospodarczej.
Art. 2. 1. Do zadań CBA, w zakresie właściwości określonej w art. 1 ust. 1, należy:
1) rozpoznawanie, zapobieganie i wykrywanie przestępstw przeciwko:
a) działalności instytucji państwowych oraz samorządu terytorialnego, określonych w art. 228-231 ustawy z dnia 6 czerwca 1997 r. - Kodeks karny, a także o którym mowa w art. 14 ustawy z dnia 21 sierpnia 1997 r. o ograniczeniu prowadzenia działalności gospodarczej przez osoby pełniące funkcje publiczne (Dz.U. Nr 106, poz. 679, z późn. zm. ),
b) wymiarowi sprawiedliwości, określonym w art. 233, wyborom i referendum, określonym w art. 250a, porządkowi publicznemu, określonym w art. 258, wiarygodności dokumentów, określonych w art. 270-273, mieniu, określonym w art. 286, obrotowi gospodarczemu, określonych w art. 296-297 i 299, obrotowi pieniędzmi i papierami wartościowymi, określonym w art. 310 ustawy z dnia 6 czerwca 1997 r. - Kodeks karny, a także o których mowa w art. 585-592 ustawy z dnia 15 września 2000 r. - Kodeks spółek handlowych (Dz.U. Nr 94, poz. 1037, z późn. zm. ) oraz określonych w art. 179-183 ustawy z dnia 29 lipca 2005 r. o obrocie instrumentami finansowymi (Dz.U. Nr 183, poz. 1538), jeżeli pozostają w związku z korupcją lub działalnością godzącą w interesy ekonomiczne państwa,
c) finansowaniu partii politycznych, określonych w art. 49d i 49f ustawy z dnia 27 czerwca 1997 r. o partiach politycznych (Dz.U. z 2001 r. Nr 79, poz. 857, z późn. zm. ), jeżeli pozostają w związku z korupcją,
d) obowiązkom podatkowym i rozliczeniom z tytułu dotacji i subwencji, określonych w rozdziale 6 ustawy z dnia 10 września 1999 r. - Kodeks karny skarbowy (Dz.U. Nr 83, poz. 930, z późn. zm. ), jeżeli pozostają w związku z korupcją lub działalnością godzącą w interesy ekonomiczne państwa
- oraz ściganie ich sprawców;
2) ujawnianie i przeciwdziałanie przypadkom nieprzestrzegania przepisów ustawy z dnia 21 sierpnia 1997 r. o ograniczeniu prowadzenia działalności gospodarczej przez osoby pełniące funkcje publiczne;
3) dokumentowanie podstaw i inicjowanie realizacji przepisów ustawy z dnia 21 czerwca 1990 r. o zwrocie korzyści uzyskanych niesłusznie kosztem Skarbu Państwa lub innych państwowych osób prawnych (Dz.U. Nr 44, poz. 255, z późn. zm. );
4) ujawnianie przypadków nieprzestrzegania określonych przepisami prawa procedur podejmowania i realizacji decyzji w przedmiocie: prywatyzacji i komercjalizacji, wsparcia finansowego, udzielania zamówień publicznych, rozporządzania mieniem jednostek lub przedsiębiorców, o których mowa w art. 1 ust. 4 oraz przyznawania koncesji, zezwoleń, zwolnień podmiotowych i przedmiotowych, ulg, preferencji, kontyngentów, plafonów, poręczeń i gwarancji kredytowych;
5) kontrola prawidłowości i prawdziwości oświadczeń majątkowych lub oświadczeń o prowadzeniu działalności gospodarczej osób pełniących funkcje publiczne, o których mowa w art. 115 § 19 ustawy z dnia 6 czerwca 1997 r. - Kodeks karny, składanych na podstawie odrębnych przepisów;
6) prowadzenie działalności analitycznej dotyczącej zjawisk występujących w obszarze właściwości CBA oraz przedstawianie w tym zakresie informacji Prezesowi Rady Ministrów, Prezydentowi Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, Sejmowi oraz Senatowi.
Art. 13. 1. W granicach zadań, o których mowa w art. 2, funkcjonariusze CBA wykonują:
1) czynności operacyjno-rozpoznawcze w celu zapobiegania popełnieniu przestępstw, ich rozpoznania i wykrywania oraz - jeżeli istnieje uzasadnione podejrzenie popełnienia przestępstwa - czynności dochodzeniowo-śledcze w celu ścigania sprawców przestępstw;
2) czynności kontrolne w celu ujawniania przypadków korupcji w instytucjach państwowych i samorządzie terytorialnym oraz nadużyć osób pełniących funkcje publiczne, a także działalności godzącej w interesy ekonomiczne państwa;
3) czynności operacyjno-rozpoznawcze i analityczno-informacyjne w celu uzyskiwania i przetwarzania informacji istotnych dla zwalczania korupcji w instytucjach państwowych i samorządzie terytorialnym oraz działalności godzącej w interesy ekonomiczne państwa.
4. Funkcjonariusze CBA podczas wykonywania czynności, o których mowa w ust. 1 i 2, mają obowiązek poszanowania godności ludzkiej oraz przestrzegania i ochrony praw człowieka niezależnie od jego narodowości, pochodzenia, sytuacji społecznej, przekonań politycznych lub religijnych albo światopoglądowych.
Art. 19. 1. W sprawach o przestępstwa określone w art. 17 ust. 1, czynności operacyjno-rozpoznawcze zmierzające do sprawdzenia uzyskanych wcześniej wiarygodnych informacji o przestępstwie oraz wykrycia sprawców i uzyskania dowodów mogą polegać na dokonaniu w sposób niejawny nabycia lub przejęcia przedmiotów pochodzących z przestępstwa, ulegających przepadkowi albo których wytwarzanie, posiadanie, przewożenie lub obrót są zabronione, a także przyjęciu lub wręczeniu korzyści majątkowej.
2. Szef CBA może zarządzić, na czas określony, czynności wymienione w ust. 1, po uzyskaniu pisemnej zgody Prokuratora Generalnego, którego bieżąco informuje o przebiegu tych czynności i ich wyniku.
3. Czynności określone w ust. 1 mogą polegać na złożeniu propozycji nabycia, zbycia lub przejęcia przedmiotów pochodzących z przestępstwa, ulegających przepadkowi, albo których wytwarzanie, posiadanie, przewożenie lub którymi obrót są zabronione, a także złożeniu propozycji przyjęcia lub wręczenia korzyści majątkowej.
4. Czynności określone w ust. 1 nie mogą polegać na kierowaniu działaniami wyczerpującymi znamiona czynu zabronionego pod groźbą kary.
(Art. 17 wymienia przestępstwa określone w art. 228-231, 250a, 258, 286, 296-297, 299, 310 § 1, 2 i 4 k.k. oraz karne skarbowe, jeżeli wartość przedmiotu czynu lub uszczuplenie należności publicznoprawnej przekraczają pięćdziesięciokrotną wysokość minimalnego wynagrodzenia za pracę).
Art. 21. Nie popełnia przestępstwa, kto, będąc do tego uprawnionym, wykonuje czynności określone w art. 19 ust. 1, jeżeli zostały zachowane warunki określone w art. 19 ust. 3.
Art. 24. 1. W związku z wykonywaniem swoich zadań CBA zapewnia ochronę środków, form i metod realizacji zadań, zgromadzonych informacji oraz własnych obiektów i danych identyfikujących funkcjonariuszy CBA.
2. Przy wykonywaniu czynności operacyjno-rozpoznawczych funkcjonariusze CBA mogą posługiwać się dokumentami, które uniemożliwiają ustalenie danych identyfikujących funkcjonariusza oraz środków, którymi posługuje się przy wykonywaniu zadań służbowych.
3. Osoby udzielające CBA pomocy przy wykonywaniu czynności operacyjno-rozpoznawczych mogą posługiwać się dokumentami, o których mowa w ust. 2.
4. Nie popełnia przestępstwa:
1) kto poleca sporządzenie lub kieruje sporządzeniem dokumentów, o których mowa w ust. 2;
2) kto sporządza dokumenty, o których mowa w ust. 2;
3) kto udziela pomocy w sporządzeniu dokumentów, o których mowa w ust. 2;
4) funkcjonariusz CBA lub osoba wymieniona w ust. 3, posługujący się przy wykonywaniu czynności operacyjno-rozpoznawczych dokumentami, o których mowa w ust. 2.