Impact of Statues of Limitations in Corruption Cases

IMPACT OF STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS IN CORRUPTION CASES AFFECTING EU FINANCIAL INTERESTS |

PAG.13

ERRORS IN THE LAW AND MULTIPLE ILLEGAL PAYMENTS NOT CONSIDERED

AS CONTINUOUS CRIME: THE JUAN JOSE IMBRODA CASE (SPAIN).

Juan Jose Imbroda, the former president of the City of Melilla, was accused of malfeasance of public

funds when hiring an external lawyer in 2001. The crime started in 2001 but payments continued in

following years to reach 357,000 Euro, an amount that was allocated without following the relevant

procedures.

Article 131 of the Criminal Code determines a sanction of ten years’ imprisonment. An error was found

in the law because it provided a SOL for crimes punished with less than ten years and a SOL for those

punished with more than ten years: the exact ten years’ time was not considered at the time. The Court

ruled in favour of the defendant and the shorter SOL was applied.

In addition to this favourable interpretation, Imbroda was blessed again with another reading of the

law. The Court considered that there was no continuing offence (which would have avoided the statute

of limitations, thus computing the dies a quo since the last action carried out), as the subsequent pay-

ments made by the politician to the lawyer were not considered as independent acts or crimes, rather

as acts of implementation, with the agreement to illegally pay the lawyer as the beginning of the SOL.

According to this view, the limitation period was expired when the defendant was notified of the char-

ges and the case was statute barred.

Spain only provides for the relative statute of limitations

In Bulgaria, some experts argue that some property crimes related to municipalities in the 90’s

could not be punished due to SOL

This is the list of considered crimes: Trading in influence, Undue acceptance of advantage, Passive bribery, Active bribery,

Embezzlement, Unlawful economic advantage, Abuse of power, Violation of confidentiality, Passive bribery in sports,

Active bribery in sports, Active bribery in foreign trade, Passive bribery in the private sector, Active bribery in the private

sector, Fraud in the obtaining of subsidies and subventions

Greece provides for an exception regarding crimes of treason and torture where the limitation period begins upon

restoration of the lawful authority” instead of “the period starting when the authority restores the lawful state of things.

Article 158 of the Criminal Code.

3.2

WHEN SOL BEGIN

Consistently with international standards, in the

six countries in question the limitation period

starts the date when the crime is committed (or

completed, depending on the kind of crime)

. No

country considers the moment when the crime

is discovered as a valid option to start the run-

ning of SOL.

Different approaches are taken for SOL rules on

continuous crimes: in Bulgaria, Romania, Portugal

and Spain, SOL start running when the last act of

the continuous crime is committed. Greece ma-

kes it start at the time of cessation of the illegal

situation that damages the protected interest.

With the reform of 2005, Italy also reviewed this

provision

and introduced a fragmented fra-

mework which does not recognize a unique SOL

in case of continuous crimes; rather, it creates

a series of multiple SOL, each of which refers

to a single conduct of the crime. This provision

is probably the most criticized part of the Italian

SOL framework as it clashes with the execution of

criminal proceedings, where these crimes, being

part of a unique proceeding, have instead diffe-

rent limitation periods.

As regards corruption crimes, SOL start the mo-

ment when the parties reach an agreement; howe-

ver, this can be declined and interpreted in slightly

different ways. In Greece, SOL for bribery begin

to run when the very first act was committed (i.e.