Defence in corruption and assimilated offences — giving and taking bribes, influence peddling and buying influence, abuse of office — in the context of business relationships, procurement and funds.
Corruption offences and those assimilated to them frequently arise in business: in the relationship between companies and authorities, in public procurement, in accessing funds, in decisions with an impact on assets. My practice focuses precisely on this area — corruption in the business and transactional world, where the charge rests on a financial flow, a contract or a loss to assets.
The common denominator with the rest of economic criminal law is the same: under the charge there is an economic operation, a sum, an asset advantage. And an effective defence requires understanding that operation — the distinction between a legitimate commercial relationship or administrative decision and a genuine act of corruption.
Abuse of office, in particular, lies on the border between criminal law and administrative or commercial law: not every decision by a person with duties, which caused a loss, is abuse — the breach of the law and the link with the loss must be proven. The same logic of the border, present throughout economic criminal law, is the essence of the defence here too.
In the context of business relationships, of obtaining contractual advantages, authorisations or decisions. The defence concerns the reality of the relationship, the intent and the correct classification of the act.
Demanding or offering advantages to influence an official. The defence concerns the real existence of the alleged influence and its link with a specific act.
Decisions by persons with duties, alleged to have breached the law and caused a loss. The defence focuses on the limits of the duties and on the distinction from a legitimate decision.
Charges connected to the award or performance of procurement contracts — rigging tenders, favouritism. The defence concerns the real compliance of the procedure and the existence of intent.
Frauds connected to obtaining or using funds, at the intersection of corruption, forgery and the economic component. The defence concerns the reality of the project and compliance with the funding conditions.
Charges regarding decisions taken in situations of personal interest. The defence concerns the real existence of the conflict and of its consequences for assets.
In each, the first issue is the distinction between legitimate conduct in business or in the exercise of a function and a genuine act of corruption — and the exact reconstruction of the economic operation behind the charge.
Corruption files are usually vast — tens or hundreds of volumes of investigation, complex financial flows, transactions across multiple entities and legal persons, procedures that were not always followed. It is precisely within this volume that the decisive defence arguments are often hidden.
A wrong decision, a management error or a procedure read differently does not automatically amount to abuse of office. The line between negligence and an intentional criminal act is often exactly where the case is decided — and where careful technical analysis can change the classification.
The prosecution often calculates a loss that ignores the goods delivered or the services actually provided. Reconstructing the economic reality — what was received in return, at what value — can substantially reduce the loss retained, or remove the premise the charge rests on.
The sheer volume of documents not rarely conceals procedural steps that were skipped. Finding them takes patience and method — but it can give rise to objections and nullities with a direct effect on the evidence or the procedural framework.
Much that favours the defence stays unused — either because of the overwhelming volume, or because the defence does not know what to look for, where, and how to correlate data from one volume with another. Here, an understanding of financial flows and business logic makes the difference between reading a file and understanding it.
Reading such a file is not only a legal exercise — it is, equally, a financial and business one. It is at this intersection that a solid defence is built.
These files almost always have an important economic and asset side: a loss to be established, an advantage to be quantified, a financial flow to be reconstructed. This is where criminal law meets economic expertise — and the correct assessment of the loss or the asset advantage is frequently decisive for the classification, the sentence and the precautionary measures.
Training that brings together criminal law with taxation and an understanding of business allows a defence that does not stop at the criminal side, but also attacks the economic foundation of the charge — often where it is most vulnerable.
Abuse of office presupposes a breach of the law in the exercise of duties, causing a loss or an undue benefit. Not every disadvantageous or questionable decision meets this requirement — both the breach of a legal provision and its link with the loss must be proven.
The defence concerns the real limits of the duties, the compliance of the decision with the law and the distinction from a mere management or administrative decision, even an unsuccessful one.
By reconstructing the real compliance of the procedure and demonstrating the absence of fraudulent intent. Many procedural irregularities are administrative errors, not criminal acts. The defence technically analyses the procurement procedure, the decisions taken and their justification, to separate error or interpretation from fraud.
The economic component — the alleged loss, the claimed advantage — is frequently overstated and can be challenged.
Because this is where my training is best put to use: corruption files in business have, at their core, an economic operation — a contract, a financial flow, a loss to assets. Understanding this component, beyond the criminal rule, allows a defence that attacks the economic foundation of the charge, not only the legal side.
It is not a general criminal practice, but one concentrated where corruption meets money and business.
Yes. As in all economic files, precautionary measures must be proportionate and justified by a probable loss or advantage. When these are not yet technically established, or when the measure is disproportionate, the seizure can be challenged — including from the perspective of the right of property.
Challenging precautionary measures is frequently one of the first and most important steps of the defence.
An early assessment establishes the distinction between legitimate conduct and a criminal act, challenges the economic foundation of the charge and manages the measures affecting your assets.