NORWAY Law and Practice Contributed by: Elisabeth Roscher, Geir Sviggum, Tine Vigmostad and Kristin Nordland Brattli, Wikborg Rein Advokatfirma AS
Corporate Criminal Liability With respect to corporate criminal liability, the size of the fine to be imposed is determined based on the non-exhaustive list of factors set out in Section 28 of the Penal Code (see 3.3 Corporate Liability ). Law Enforcement/Case Law In addition, the Norwegian National Authority of Investigation and Prosecution of Economic and Environmental Crime (ØKOKRIM) will pub - lish information regarding the factors ØKOKRIM considers when issuing a penalty notice, includ - ing the size of the fine. Also, case law may provide guidance for the assessment of appropriate penalties for corrup - tion offences. For example, the Supreme Court has emphasised that the preventative effect of a penalty is of particular importance when deter - mining appropriate penalties for corruption com - mitted in the course of public service. Norwegian law does not require individuals or companies to report any violations, or suspicion of violations, of the Anti-corruption Provisions. 6.2 Voluntary Disclosure Incentives As further described in 5.2 Guidelines Appli- cable to the Assessment of Penalties and 7.4 Discretion for Mitigation and Aggravation , self- reporting/admission of guilt could be of signifi - cant importance, both in the determination of whether to prosecute and at the sentencing stage. Companies are encouraged by the enforcement authorities (such as ØKOKRIM) to disclose any 6. Disclosure Processes 6.1 Disclosure Obligations
discount of between a quarter and a third would be considered appropriate. However, an overall assessment of all the relevant circumstances of the case must always be made. Moreover, Section 80 provides a list of circum - stances that would allow for the imposition of a penalty below the minimum penalty or a less severe type of penalty. Inter alia, this may be done when the offender, without knowing that they were under suspicion, has, to a significant degree, prevented or reversed the harm caused by the offence, or has made an unreserved con - fession. In general, repeated offences may be more severely punished. Section 77, letter k, provides that an aggravating factor when determining an appropriate penalty is whether the act was com - mitted by a person who has previously been the subject of a criminal sanction for similar acts or other acts of relevance to the case. Moreover, Section 79, which allows for the imposition of penalties exceeding the maximum penalty for the offence, provides that a sentence of impris - onment may be increased up to double length; inter alia, when a previously convicted person has again committed a criminal act of the same nature as one for which they have previously been convicted. In respect of fines, Section 53 provides that when assessing the size of the fine to be imposed, particular weight shall, in general, be given, in addition to such factors that are generally given weight in assessing penalties, to the offender’s income, assets, responsibility for dependants, debt burden and other circumstances affecting financial capacity.
311 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook