NORWAY Law and Practice Contributed by: Elisabeth Roscher, Geir Sviggum, Tine Vigmostad and Kristin Nordland Brattli, Wikborg Rein Advokatfirma AS
The Supreme Court stated in the 2022 judg - ment that the term “in connection with” indi - cates a requirement of connection between the performance of a benefit and the position the recipient holds. But even if such connection or link must have a certain strength and be clear, there is no requirement for a direct causal con - nection between the benefit provided and the recipient’s position. The criteria “in connection with” is thus discretionary and must be assessed concretely in each case based on several fac - tors. These factors may overlap with the factors used for assessing the other discretionary crite - ria, “improper advantage”. The Supreme Court’s decision has led to a need for further clarification. When both the criteria “in connection with” and “improper advantage” are to be interpreted in a discretionary manner, it becomes difficult to separate the assessments from each other. Also, it is not entirely clear how and in relation to which of these criteria the question of whether the purpose of providing the benefit was to influence the recipient’s decisions should be assessed or emphasised. In line with the Supreme Court’s interpretation, the Court of Appeal conducted an assessment of several factors, including the nature of the offi - cial’s position in the municipality, the relation - ship between him and the architect, the kind of benefit that was given and the value of it, as well as the probability that the benefit would influ - ence the official. The Court of Appeal found that there was a risk of influence at the time when the architect provided the free architectural ser - vices and thus that the benefit was given “in connection with” the municipal planning official’s position. Hence, the Court of Appeal chose to assess the influence in relation to the question of whether the benefit was given in connection with the recipient’s position.
The judgment is final. Corruption in the Municipal Sector
In April 2022, four individuals were convicted by the Oslo District Court with imprisonment for corruption relating to the sale of real estate to the municipality of Oslo. A purchaser hired by a municipal real estate company was convicted for passive corruption for accepting money and other improper advantages from private inves - tors in connection with their sale of real estate at inflated values to the municipal company. The remaining three individuals were convicted for active corruption, for non-transparently paying the consultant money, including kickbacks, in connection with the sales. The terms of impris - onment varied from six months to three-and- a-half years. A fifth individual was convicted of laundering the proceeds from the crimes. The purchaser and two of the other individu - als appealed the decision, but their convictions were upheld by the Court of Appeal in October 2023 (decision LB-2022-138463-2). Although no motive for influence was proven, the Court of Appeal noted that it is not a requirement that the active briber receives a specific quid pro quo; pure “greasing” is also covered. ØKOKRIM has stated that the case illustrates the seriousness of corruption in the municipal sector and in particular in public procurement, where private and public sectors intersect. ØKOKRIM has underlined that it will focus on investigating corruption, particularly in the public sector, going forward. Simple Corruption in DNV In 2022, an individual was indicted for aggravat - ed corruption for providing a Russian intelligence officer with documents he had obtained through his job as an engineer with DNV. Upon appeal,
316 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook