NORWAY Law and Practice Contributed by: Elisabeth Roscher, Geir Sviggum, Tine Vigmostad and Kristin Nordland Brattli, Wikborg Rein Advokatfirma AS
of a case without court proceedings (Chapter 20 of the Criminal Procedure Act). Penalty notices are frequently used in cases regarding corporate criminal liability; eg, in cor - ruption and other economic crime cases. If the penalty notice is not accepted by the company (or person) charged, the notice will serve as an indictment and court proceedings will be initi - ated. In practice, and as mentioned in 6.2 Volun- tary Disclosure Incentives , the willingness to self-report/admit guilt and co-operate with the authorities will be taken into account; eg, in the prosecutorial discretion on whether to impose corporate liability and with respect to the level of the fine. Furthermore, self-reporting and admission of guilt may also be considered by the court when determining an appropriate penalty (see 5.2 Guidelines Applicable to the Assessment of Penalties ). Also, see 4.5 Safe Harbour or Amnesty Pro- gramme , 6.2 Voluntary Disclosure Incen- tives and 6.3 Self-Disclosure Procedures on ØKOKRIM’s ongoing work to develop guidelines for imposing corporate penalties in international corruption cases. Discretion for Aggravation Provided that the relevant conditions for crimi - nal liability are met, the enforcement bodies can press charges for aggravated corruption (see 2.1 Bribery ). Excluding this, the Norwegian criminal procedure does not currently contain any discre - tion for aggravation awarded by the enforcement bodies.
Furthermore, aggravating circumstances will be taken into consideration when the courts deter - mine the appropriate penalties for violations (see 5.2 Guidelines Applicable to the Assessment of Penalties ). 7.5 Recent Landmark Investigations or Decisions Some examples of recent cases involving vio - lations of the Anti-corruption Provisions are included below. The Besseberg Case In April 2024, the former president of the Inter - national Biathlon Union (IBU) was convicted by the Buskerud District Court for aggravated cor - ruption and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three years and one month for having abused his position as IBU president. The case was extensive and Besseberg was found guilty of accepting bribes in the form of, eg, expensive watches, hunting trips and a liaison with prosti - tutes over a 12-year period. The verdict has been appealed and is therefore not legally binding. The Tjøme Case In the decision HR-2022-1278-A, the Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s acquit - tal of an architect who had provided free archi - tectural services to a municipal planning official. In the retrial in the Court of Appeal (decision LA-2022-118883) following the Supreme Court’s decision, both were convicted with aggravated corruption. The municipal planning official was sentenced to 11 months while the architect was sentenced to nine months of imprisonment. The Court of Appeal also decided to confiscate NOK30,000 from the municipal planning official.
315 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook