Delad glädje är dubbel glädje? - Om mutbrottsbestämmelsernas generella reglering
(2021) JURM02 20211Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Den svenska mutbrottslagstiftningen gör i dagsläget ingen skillnad på om en muttransaktion sker inom offentlig eller privat verksamhet. Den hållningen har kritiserats av bland annat Madeleine Leijonhufvud eftersom två olika skyddsintressen regleras generellt i en och samma bestämmelse. Vidare har lagstiftningen kritiserats eftersom korruption inom offentlig verksamhet har ansetts vara mer allvarligt än inom privat verksamhet. Kritiken baseras på att kriminalisera offentlig och privat korruption generellt förtar allvaret med det förstnämnda. Denna uppsats syftar till att öka förståelsen för den svenska mutbrottslagstiftningen genom att undersöka den problematik som finns med att reglera mutbrotten generellt under samma bestämmelse. Vidare... (More)
- Den svenska mutbrottslagstiftningen gör i dagsläget ingen skillnad på om en muttransaktion sker inom offentlig eller privat verksamhet. Den hållningen har kritiserats av bland annat Madeleine Leijonhufvud eftersom två olika skyddsintressen regleras generellt i en och samma bestämmelse. Vidare har lagstiftningen kritiserats eftersom korruption inom offentlig verksamhet har ansetts vara mer allvarligt än inom privat verksamhet. Kritiken baseras på att kriminalisera offentlig och privat korruption generellt förtar allvaret med det förstnämnda. Denna uppsats syftar till att öka förståelsen för den svenska mutbrottslagstiftningen genom att undersöka den problematik som finns med att reglera mutbrotten generellt under samma bestämmelse. Vidare redogör denna uppsats för olika lösningsförslag som presenterats i doktrin genom åren, för att sedan undersöka om någon av lösningsförslagen löser den ovannämnda problematiken på ett tillfredsställande vis.
Problematiken kan delas upp utifrån två teman, dels problematiken med att en generell reglering förtar effekten av korruptionsbekämpningen inom offentlig verksamhet, dels problematiken med dubbla skyddsintressen. Det har framkommit olika lösningsförslag för att lösa den problematik som finns på grund av att mutbrotten regleras generellt. Leijonhufvud föreslår att mutbrottsbestämmelserna endast ska hänföra sig till mutor inom offentlig verksamhet, och att mutor inom privat verksamhet ska regleras tillsammans med andra trolöshetsbrott i bestämmelsen om trolöshet mot huvudman. Vidare menar hon att mutbrottslagstiftningen enbart bör fokusera på tagaren av mutan, eftersom denne enligt henne är mest klandervärd. Oldenstam menar å sin sida att mutbrottslagstiftningen endast borde hänföra sig till offentlig verksamhet som inbegriper myndighetsutövning samt andra fundamentala och allmännyttiga samhällsfunktioner. Vidare argumenterar Oldenstam för en avkriminalisering av givande och tagande av muta inom privat verksamhet, där regleringen då borde ske genom civil- och arbetsrättsliga medel samt branschspecifika organisationer och koder. Avslutningsvis menar Tengelin att mutbrottslagstiftningen bör graderas likt många andra brott i brottsbalken, det vill säga grovt brott, brott av normalgraden och ringa brott. Vidare förespråkar Tengelin ett nytt brott för att nyansera den svenska korruptionslagstiftningen, korruptivt beteende. Den nya rubriceringen ska täcka de mer lindrigare formerna av korruption.
Uppsatsen kommer fram till att inget av lösningsförslagen på egen hand löser problematiken som redogörs för kring mutbrottslagstiftningens generella reglering. Lösningsförslagen har sina fördelar och nackdelar. Ur de olika förslagen går det dock att ta ledning inför en eventuell framtida reform som tillsammans med stöd från civilrättsliga medel och Institutet Mot Mutors Näringslivskod kan bidra till en mer nyanserad mutbrottslagstiftning. (Less) - Abstract
- The Swedish bribery legislation currently makes no difference between bribery within the public or private sector. This has been criticized by, among others, Madeleine Leijonhufvud because two different interests are protected under the same provision. Furthermore, the legislation has been criticized because corruption within the public sector has been considered more serious than within the private sector. The aforementioned criticism is based on the idea that criminalizing public and private corruption, degrades from the seriousness of the former. This essay aims to increase the understanding of Swedish bribery legislation by examining the problems that exist with regulating bribery within the public and private sector under the same... (More)
- The Swedish bribery legislation currently makes no difference between bribery within the public or private sector. This has been criticized by, among others, Madeleine Leijonhufvud because two different interests are protected under the same provision. Furthermore, the legislation has been criticized because corruption within the public sector has been considered more serious than within the private sector. The aforementioned criticism is based on the idea that criminalizing public and private corruption, degrades from the seriousness of the former. This essay aims to increase the understanding of Swedish bribery legislation by examining the problems that exist with regulating bribery within the public and private sector under the same provision. Furthermore, this essay describes various proposed solutions that have been presented in the doctrine over the years, to investigate whether any of the proposed solutions solve the problems in a satisfactory manner.
The problem with regulating bribery within the public and private sector under the same provision can be divided into two themes. One part of the problem is that a general regulation devalues from the fight against corruption within the public sector. Another part of the problem is that two very different interests are regulated under the same provision. Various solutions have emerged to solve the problems that exist because Swedish bribery legislation makes no difference whether a bribe takes place within the public or private sector. Leijonhufvud proposes that the bribery provisions should only apply to bribes within the public sector, and that bribes within the private sector should be regulated within the provision of breach of trust. Furthermore, she believes that the bribery legislation should only focus on the person receiving the bribe, as this is, according to her, more reprehensible. Oldenstam believes that the bribery legislation should only apply to public activities that involve the exercise of authority as well as other fundamental social functions. Furthermore, Oldenstam argues for a decriminalization of bribery within the private sector, and that civil and labor law as well as industry-specific organizations and codes would serve as sufficient regulatory means. Tengelin believes that the bribery legislation should have the same systematics of many other crimes in the Penal Code, i.e., serious crime, crime of the normal degree and minor offences. Furthermore, Tengelin advocates a new classification of crime to nuance Swedish corruption legislation, corrupt behavior. This new type of crime would cover the more lenient forms of corruption.
The essay concludes that none of the proposed solutions solve the problems of a general bribery legislation on its own. The proposed solutions have their advantages and disadvantages. From the various proposals, however, it is possible to take guidance for a possible future reform which, together with support from civil law and the Swedish Anti-Corruption Institute’s Code to prevent Corruption in Business, can contribute to more nuanced bribery legislation. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9045382
- author
- Tingström, Einar LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- A divided provision? - The problems with a general Swedish bribery legislation
- course
- JURM02 20211
- year
- 2021
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Mutbrott, Givande av muta, Tagande av muta, Generell reglering, Muta, Straffrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9045382
- date added to LUP
- 2021-06-09 11:58:04
- date last changed
- 2021-06-09 11:58:04
@misc{9045382,
abstract = {{The Swedish bribery legislation currently makes no difference between bribery within the public or private sector. This has been criticized by, among others, Madeleine Leijonhufvud because two different interests are protected under the same provision. Furthermore, the legislation has been criticized because corruption within the public sector has been considered more serious than within the private sector. The aforementioned criticism is based on the idea that criminalizing public and private corruption, degrades from the seriousness of the former. This essay aims to increase the understanding of Swedish bribery legislation by examining the problems that exist with regulating bribery within the public and private sector under the same provision. Furthermore, this essay describes various proposed solutions that have been presented in the doctrine over the years, to investigate whether any of the proposed solutions solve the problems in a satisfactory manner.
The problem with regulating bribery within the public and private sector under the same provision can be divided into two themes. One part of the problem is that a general regulation devalues from the fight against corruption within the public sector. Another part of the problem is that two very different interests are regulated under the same provision. Various solutions have emerged to solve the problems that exist because Swedish bribery legislation makes no difference whether a bribe takes place within the public or private sector. Leijonhufvud proposes that the bribery provisions should only apply to bribes within the public sector, and that bribes within the private sector should be regulated within the provision of breach of trust. Furthermore, she believes that the bribery legislation should only focus on the person receiving the bribe, as this is, according to her, more reprehensible. Oldenstam believes that the bribery legislation should only apply to public activities that involve the exercise of authority as well as other fundamental social functions. Furthermore, Oldenstam argues for a decriminalization of bribery within the private sector, and that civil and labor law as well as industry-specific organizations and codes would serve as sufficient regulatory means. Tengelin believes that the bribery legislation should have the same systematics of many other crimes in the Penal Code, i.e., serious crime, crime of the normal degree and minor offences. Furthermore, Tengelin advocates a new classification of crime to nuance Swedish corruption legislation, corrupt behavior. This new type of crime would cover the more lenient forms of corruption.
The essay concludes that none of the proposed solutions solve the problems of a general bribery legislation on its own. The proposed solutions have their advantages and disadvantages. From the various proposals, however, it is possible to take guidance for a possible future reform which, together with support from civil law and the Swedish Anti-Corruption Institute’s Code to prevent Corruption in Business, can contribute to more nuanced bribery legislation.}},
author = {{Tingström, Einar}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Delad glädje är dubbel glädje? - Om mutbrottsbestämmelsernas generella reglering}},
year = {{2021}},
}