Contributed by Cobalt.
1 Legal Framework
1.1 What is the legal framework for bribery and corruption in your jurisdiction?
In Estonia, the legal framework for corruption and bribery is primarily regulated by the following acts:
• the Anti-corruption Act;
• the Penal Code;
• the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In addition, there is the Code of Ethics for Public Officials, which sets higher ethical standards for public officials and assumes that public officials are held to a higher standard and must not only act but also appear to act in an ethical and corruption-free manner.
1.2 Which international anti-corruption conventions apply?
Estonia is a member to several international anti-corruption conventions. The conventions that apply to Estonia include:
• the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC);
• the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 (2) (c) of the Treaty on European Union on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of Member States of the European Union;
• the Council of Europe’s Civil Law Convention on Corruption;
• the Council of Europe’s Criminal Law Convention on Corruption;
• the Additional Protocol to the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption;
• the Council of Europe’s Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime;
• the Agreement establishing the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO);
• the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.
1.3 What is the definition of bribery?
The definition of bribery is set out in article 294 section (1) of the Penal Code, according to which a bribe is a payment (or promise) of property or any other benefit given to a public official in return for the fact that the public official, in the exercise of his or her official position, has committed, or there are grounds to believe that he or she will commit in the future, an act prohibited by law, or has unlawfully failed to commit, or there are grounds to believe that he or she will fail to commit in the future, an act prohibited by law.
1.4 Is private sector bribery covered by law? If yes, what is the relevant legislation?
Bribery in the private sector is regulated as a separate offense in the Penal Code. According to article 4023 section (1) of the Penal Code, requesting, consenting to promising, or accepting of property or other advantage by a person competent to engage in economic activities in the interests of a person in private law, and an arbitrator to himself or herself or third person, in exchange for abuse of his or her competence is punishable by a pecuniary punishment or up to five years’ imprisonment. Pursuant to article 4024 section (1) of the Penal Code, promising or giving a bribe in the private sector is punishable by a pecuniary punishment or up to five years’ imprisonment. Both acts are also punishable if committed by a legal person.
1.5 What is the definition of a public official and a foreign public official? Are employees at state-owned or state-controlled enterprises treated differently? Are there official lists of public officials, offices, or state-owned or state-controlled enterprises?
An official according to article 288 section (1) of the Penal Code (also in article 2 section (1) of the Anti-Corruption Act) is a natural person who holds an official position for the performance of public duties regardless of whether he or she performs the duties imposed on him or her permanently or temporarily, for a charge or without charge, while in service or engaged in a liberal profession or under a contract, by appointment or election.
A foreign official according to article 288 section (3) of the Penal Code is an elected or appointed person who performs the functions of the legislative, executive, or judicial power in a foreign state or an administrative unit of any level thereof, or who performs public law functions for a foreign state, its administrative unit, public institution or public undertaking, as well as a public servant or representative of an international organization in public law, including a member of an international representative body or court.
Two factors are important for defining a public official:
1) Official position. The official position is defined as a legal definition in article 2 section (2) of the Anti-corruption Act, according to which an official position means the rights and obligations arising from the legislation, transactions, or work organization of an agency upon the performance of public duties.
2) Performing a public task. A public task is an undefined legal concept. Although the performance of a public task presupposes action in the public interest, the mere fact that it is in the public interest is not sufficient for an individual task to be considered public. Above all, the tasks entrusted by or under the law to the State, a local authority, or any other legal person governed by public law must be regarded as public tasks. A public task includes the functions of a public authority, irrespective of whether, and if so, how, the performance of those functions affects third parties outside the administration. Similarly, the performance of a public task includes the performance of a public service, whether in the form of a public-law relationship of trust and confidence (article 5 subsection 1) of the Civil Service Act) or a private-law employment relationship (article 5 subsection 2) of the Civil Service Act), since in both cases it is directly connected with the exercise of official authority or an activity in support thereof. Employment in a legal person governed by public law may also be regarded as the performance of a public task, in so far as the creation of such a legal person is motivated by the public interest (article 25 section (2) of the Act on the General Part of the Civil Code). Secondly, a public task may also be performed by a private person outside the aforementioned institutions if the exercise of public authority has been delegated to that person. The performance of a public task is also implied where a competent authority has conferred on a private person, by legislative act or by contract, the power or the obligation to provide a service in the public interest for the operation of which the State or another legal person governed by public law is ultimately responsible for under the law.
There is no official binding list of public officials in Estonia, each official’s actions must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
1.6 Are there any regulations on political donations?
The provisions on political donations are set out in the Political Parties Act as follows.
According to article 123 section (1), ‘donation’ means a financially assessable benefit, including a service, but not voluntary work, voluntarily given by a natural person who is a citizen of the Republic of Estonia or has the permanent right of residence or the status of a long-term resident in Estonia out of their assets to a political party or a member thereof for the purpose of supporting the activities of the political party.
According to section (11) of the same provision, the board of a political party adopts a procedure for accepting donations. The procedure for accepting donations will be published on the website of the political party.
According to section (2) of the same provision, a donation that does not comply with the terms and conditions laid down in section (1) of this article is prohibited. Above all, the following is prohibited:
1) anonymous donations;
2) donations by legal persons;
3) the transfer or the granting of use of goods, services, or proprietary rights to a political party on conditions not available to other persons;
4) release from ordinary binding duties or obligations;
5) waiver of claims against a political party;
6) payment of the expenses of a political party by third parties for the political party or making concessions to the political party, unless the payment of such expenses or the making of such concessions is also available to other persons in ordinary economic activities;
7) donation made via a natural person and at the expense of the assets of a third party;
8) donations by aliens, except for donations by persons holding the permanent right of residence or the status of a long-term resident in Estonia.
According to section (3) of the same provision, a political party is allowed to accept cash donations from a natural person to the extent of up to EUR 1,200 per financial year. Cash donations are to be immediately registered by a political party as revenue.
According to section (4) of the same provision, the usual value of the object or right serves as the basis for the evaluation of a non-monetary donation. If there are generally acknowledged experts for the evaluation of an object, the object of a non-monetary donation will be evaluated by them. If a non-monetary donation has been evaluated below its actual value, the difference between the values will be deemed a prohibited donation.
According to section (5) of the same provision, upon submission of the annual report specified in article 129 of the Political Parties Act, the evaluation of the value of a non-monetary donation must be audited by an auditor who will submit an opinion regarding whether the non-monetary donation was evaluated in accordance with the law. Among other things, the opinion must contain a description of the non-monetary donation and indicate which method was used for the evaluation of the non-monetary donation.
1.7 Are there any defenses available?
Estonian law does not provide special defenses for bribery offenses. Remorse and other mitigating factors may be taken into account, but no special remedy exists.
Generally speaking, there are three possible consequences of accepting a prohibited donation. First, the political party must return the prohibited donation (article 124 of the Political Parties Act). In the case of services, this means that the political party must reimburse the prohibited donation to the person who made it. Secondly, the political party funding supervision committee may issue an order to the political party to return the prohibited donation and, in the event of non-compliance, impose a penalty payment or reduce the party’s contribution from the national budget. Thirdly, the making and receiving of a prohibited donation may be punishable by either a misdemeanor or a criminal offense, depending on the size of the prohibited donation (article 1218 of the Political Parties Act and article 4021 of the Penal Code).
1.8 Is there an exemption for facilitation payments?
Facilitation payments are not exempt from anti-bribery laws in Estonia. Engaging in such practices can result in significant legal consequences, incl. criminal.
1.9 What are the criminal sanctions for bribery? Are there any civil and administrative sanctions related to bribery cases?
The offenses of accepting, giving, or procuring bribes are punishable by a pecuniary punishment or up to five years’ imprisonment. Where a natural person has taken a bribe at least twice, has solicited a bribe, or has done so in a group or on a large scale, the natural person can be punished by imprisonment of between one and ten years. If the natural person has been bribed for at least the second time or the act has been committed by a group or on a large scale, the natural person can also be punished by imprisonment for a term of between one and ten years. A legal person can be criminally liable for a pecuniary punishment for the same offenses. Current Estonian law does not provide for civil or administrative penalties for bribery offenses. That said, there are misdemeanor provisions e.g., in the Anti-corruption Act for lesser offences.
1.10 Does the national bribery and corruption law apply beyond national boundaries?
The Penal Code applies to grant, acceptance, or arranging receipt of bribes, or influence peddling committed outside the territory of Estonia, or to crimes which damage the financial interests of the European Union, if such act was committed by an Estonian citizen, Estonian official or a legal person registered in Estonia, or an alien who has been detained in Estonia and who is not extradited, or if such person participated therein (article 7 section (2) subsection 2) of the Penal Code).
1.11 What are the limitation periods for bribery offenses?
As a starting point, bribery offenses are second-degree offenses under Estonian law, i.e., a natural person is punished with a pecuniary punishment or imprisonment for up to five years, and a legal person is punished with a pecuniary punishment. According to article 81 section (1) subsection 2) of the Penal Code, second-degree offenses expire five years after the completion of the offense.
That said, if the crime of accepting or giving a bribe is committed at least twice, by a group (2+), by requesting a bribe (sic!), or on a large-scale basis (KEUR 40+), the offense is considered a first-degree offense which has a more severe punishment and it expires ten years after the completion of the offense (subsection 1) of the aforementioned article).
1.12 Are there any planned amendments or developments to the national bribery and corruption law?
A draft law amending the Anti-Corruption Act is currently pending in the Estonian parliament. According to the draft, the regulation on the violation of the restriction on the acts of public officials will be modernized and clarified, in particular, the list of persons related to a public official will be clarified. Related persons will be defined as persons close to the official. In addition to kinship and descent, the content of the close relationship must consider the real social and emotional bond between people, such as sharing of responsibilities, mutual reliance, and trust. Decisions and actions in relation to these persons are prohibited and are subject to a restriction of acts. It is specified that, if a public official is a connected person in a legal person to which he or she has been appointed during his or her duties, a public official may not act or take decisions in relation to himself or herself as a natural person, for example in matters relating to his or her own remuneration and benefits.
Further, a healthcare professional will no longer be required to impose a restraint on a connected person if the provision of healthcare does not create a substantial undue advantage for him or her or his or her connected person. In addition, the draft law introduces an obligation to declare investments in crypto assets and participation in and claims against crowdfunding projects. In the case of crypto-assets, the declaration must indicate the type and value of the crypto-asset, and in the case of an investment or claim in a crowdfunding project, the crowdfunding service provider, and the value of the holding.
Additionally, the person making the declaration of interest is also required to indicate in the declaration if she or he is a beneficial owner within the meaning of the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act.
2 Gifts and Hospitality
2.1 How are gifts and hospitality treated?
In Estonia, gifts and hospitality are defined as “benefits” in the Anti-Corruption Act. Benefits can be material or non-material and non-corruptive or corruptive. If corruptive, benefits are defined as “income derived from corrupt practices”. According to article 4 section (1) of the Anti-Corruption Act, income derived from corrupt practices is the proprietary or other benefits offered to the official or any third person due to his or her official duties or demanded by the official, and benefits received by violation of the obligations of the official. Benefits, which cannot be associated with official duties, or which are unambiguously understood as common courtesy, shall not be deemed to be corruptive.
2.2 Does the law give any specific guidance on gifts and hospitality in the public and private sectors?
Estonian law gives some general guidance on gifts and hospitality in the public sector. However, the law does not give any specific guidance for gifts and hospitality in the private sector.
An official can only accept such gifts and hospitality, which are unambiguously understood as common courtesy, or which cannot in any way be associated with his or her official duties. For example, officials are generally permitted to accept flowers, boxes of chocolates, souvenirs, and books, but there is no specific monetary threshold. Therefore, disputes can and do emerge should the value of such gifts be outside the scope of “normal”.
According to article 3 section (1) subsection 1) of the Anti-Corruption Act, an official is prohibited from demanding, intermediating, and receiving income derived from corrupt practices.
If an official has received benefits, that can be associated with official duties, he or she must immediately give notification to his or her agency or the person or body who has the right to appoint him or her to accept these benefits. It is also stipulated that an official must refuse to accept any benefits, which are defined as income derived from corrupt practices or, if this is impossible, deliver the benefit immediately to his or her agency or the person or body who has the right to appoint him or her. If delivery of the benefit is impossible, the official must pay the market value of the benefit instead of this. The delivered benefit or the value thereof in money shall be transferred into state ownership or returned if so provided by law (article 4 section (2) of the Anti-Corruption Act). Violation of the requirement to notify the receipt of income derived from corrupt practices and transfer thereof is punishable by a fine (misdemeanor) according to article 18 of the Anti-Corruption Act.
2.3 Are there limitations on the value of benefits (gifts and hospitality) and/or any other benefit) that may be given to a government/public official? If so, please describe those limitations and their bases.
There is no specific threshold. See above for explanations.
2.4 Are there any defenses or exceptions to the limitations (e.g., reasonable promotional expenses)?
Since there are no specific limitations (see above), there are no defenses or exceptions to the limitations, and the above-explained rules apply.
That said, and broadening the question slightly, there are multiple exceptions to the procedural restrictions that have been established for officials. As for the procedural restrictions, according to article 11 section (1) of the Anti-corruption Act, an official is generally prohibited from performing an act of making a decision, if at least one of the following circumstances exists: 1) the decision is made or the act is performed with respect to the official or a person connected to him or her; 2) the official is aware of an economic or other interest of that official or a person connected to him or her and which may have an impact on the act or decision; 3) the official is aware of a risk of corruption.
In a previously described case, an official is also prohibited from assigning the task of performing the act or making the decision to his or her subordinates. Instead, an official shall immediately inform his or her immediate superior or the person or body who has the right to appoint the official of the circumstances previously described, and the latter shall perform the act or make the decision or assign this task to another official (article 11 section (2) of the Anti-corruption Act).
In regard to the exceptions from these procedural restrictions, pursuant to article 11 section (3) of the Anti-corruption Act, there are multiple cases where the procedural restrictions do not apply. The restrictions on activities shall not be applied: 1) to adoption of legislative acts and participation in the adoption or preparation thereof, considering the budget of state and local governments shall be deemed to be a legislative act; 2) to a trustee in bankruptcy conducting bankruptcy proceedings, for use of the services of the office through which he or she operates; 3) if necessary and in the case of acts which cannot be postponed if there is a threat of major damage; 4) if replacement of the official is impossible due to lack of qualified personnel; 5) in the case of acts or decisions by which an agency performing public duties ensures the organization of its work, except for service-related decisions; 6) if there is no risk of corruption because of routine making of a decision or performing of an act, including if an official makes a disposition or performs an act without having an opportunity to determine the circumstances thereof; 7) in rural municipality or city agencies, if the application of restrictions on activities would be unreasonable from the point of view of public interest, taking account of the specific character of the local government unit; 8) in the case of elections inside bodies.
These procedural restrictions and the exceptions thereof are important to acknowledge as a knowing violation of a procedural restriction or the terms and conditions of a procedural restriction is a misdemeanor (article 19 of the Anti-corruption Act). Furthermore, a knowing violation of a procedural restriction can also amount to a crime if it is committed to a large extent (article 300-1 of the Penal Code).
3 Anti-Corruption Compliance
3.1 Are companies required to have anti-corruption compliance procedures in place?
Estonia has numerous laws and regulations aimed at preventing corruption, e.g., the Anti-Corruption Act and the Penal Code. Additionally, Estonia has also committed to international anti-corruption agreements, like the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. That said, there are no specific provisions in Estonian national law that require companies to have anti-corruption compliance procedures in place. Generally speaking, Estonian legislation criminalizes corruption but does not impose specific obligations to establish and maintain measures to prevent corruption in companies. This is not to say that companies do not have and/or are not advised to have such internal measures in place. In criminal proceedings, as a starting point, the supervising authorities will typically determine whether something was in compliance with internal rules or not. If compliant with appropriate internal rules, charges most likely won’t be brought against the person under investigation due to lack of guilt.
3.2 Is there any official guidance on anti-corruption compliance?
The Anti-corruption Act outlines the obligations for public officials and entities to prevent corruption, including requirements for reporting and managing conflicts of interest. The Penal Code includes provisions for criminal offenses related to corruption, e.g., bribery.
Setting the above aside, the Ministry of Justice is the authority coordinating anti-corruption activities which have included companies in their “Anti-corruption agenda 2021-2025”. It emphasizes that 1) companies’ awareness of corruption is low and so often different forms of corruption go unnoticed, 2) the government’s role in the prevention of corruption can primarily be raising awareness and motivating honest business practices, 3) it is also important to raise awareness of financial auditors since they can notice cases of corruption in the course of their work, but due to the confidentiality terms, they often do not report the crime to the police, assuming the client himself will do it, 4) to increase transparency, the government intends to also enhance its supervision and “nudge” companies to submit public fiscal year reports correctly and on time – every year around 60% of companies submit their fiscal year reports on time, 20% submit it late and 20% fail to submit it.
3.3 Does the law protect whistleblowers reporting bribery and corruption allegations? If an EU member, was the EU Directive on Whistleblowing implemented in your jurisdiction?
The EU Directive on Whistleblowing was implemented in Estonia on 15 May 2024 when the Estonian Parliament passed the Act on the Protection of Whistleblowers of Work-Related Violations of European Union Law (referred to as the Whistleblower Protection Act). The Whistleblower Protection Act will come into effect on 1 September 2024.
Since both bribery and corruption are considered violations of EU law, and the law protects whistleblowers who report these violations, the Whistleblower Protection Act provides protection for such reporting.
3.3.1 What can be reported?
According to article 2 section 1 (1) of the Whistleblower Protection Act, whistleblowers are protected when they report to their employer any violation of EU law in the following areas: 1) public procurement; 2) financial services, products and markets, and the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing; 3) product safety and compliance; 4) transport safety; 5) environmental protection; 6) radiation protection and nuclear safety; 7) food and feed safety, animal health and welfare; 8) public health; 9) consumer protection; 10) protection of privacy and personal data, and security of network and information systems; 11) violations affecting the financial interests of the Union as referred to in article 325 of the TFEU and as further specified in relevant Union measures; 12) violations relating to the internal market, as referred to in article 26 section (2) of the TFEU, including breaches of Union competition and State aid rules, as well as breaches relating to the internal market in relation to acts which breach the rules of corporate tax or to arrangements the purpose of which is to obtain a tax advantage that defeats the object or purpose of the applicable corporate tax law.
3.3.2 Who is protected?
According to article 3 section 1 of the Whistleblower Protection Act, the following persons, who have reported a violation of European Union law, which was discovered during employment activities, will receive protection: 1) a person working under an employment contract or other contract according to the law of obligations; 2) civil servant; 3) sole proprietor; 4) a member of the management or controlling body of a private company, non-profit organization, foundation or state-owned profit-making organization; 5) shareholder and partner of a private company; 6) a person acting as a volunteer; 7) an intern at an institution or private company or sole proprietor; 8) a person engaged in pre-contractual negotiations or a person otherwise preparing a contract or a person whose employment status has ended; 9) a person receiving an athlete grant; 10) a person working at a contractual partner of an institution or a legal entity in a form specified in the same act.
3.3.3 What are the conditions for protection?
According to article 13 subsections 1) and 2) of the Whistleblower Protection Act, the reporting person receives protection under the Act if: 1) at the time of reporting of the violation, the reporting person had reasonable grounds to believe that the violation has directly started or has been completed and that the violation falls within the scope of the Whistleblower Protection Act, and 2) the report of the violation was internal, external or public disclosure in accordance with the provisions of the Whistleblower Protection Act.
3.3.4 What companies does the relevant legislation apply to?
By September 1, 2024, the legislation applies to the following companies:
1) companies with 250 or more employees;
1) entities under national financial supervision;
2) certain state and municipal authorities and their subordinate institutions.
Starting from January 1, 2025, the legislation also applies to companies with 50 to 249 employees. Companies with fewer than 50 employees, will not be subject to the legislation.
4 Corporate Criminal Liability
4.1 Can corporate entities be held liable for bribery and corruption? If so, what is the nature and scope of such liability?
Yes, criminal offenses listed under the so-called corruption chapter of the Penal Code provide a basis for holding companies criminally liable for such actions, incl. for bribery.
According to article 14 section (1) of the Penal Code, a legal person is liable for an act committed in the interest of the legal person or in breach of its legal obligations by: 1) its body, a member, senior official, or competent representative; or 2) any person on the instructions of a body or a person specified above, or due to insufficient work organization or supervision of the legal person.
If found criminally liable, corporate entities can punished primarily with a pecuniary punishment. The maximum amount is MEUR 40, or a % of its annual turnover.
4.2 Can a company be liable for a bribery offense committed by an entity controlled or owned by it? Are there requirements for the parent to avoid liability in these situations?
Estonian law does not provide such automatic liability of a parent company for the bribery offenses committed by one of its subsidiaries. However, the liability of the parent company can arise under certain conditions. Parent companies may be found liable if there is evidence of control, influence, or direct benefit of the crime committed by the subsidiary (i.e., the conditions of article 14 of the Penal Code are met).
In order to avoid liability in these situations, parent companies can take different measures, for example establishing compliance programs, conducting due diligence, monitoring and auditing the actions of the subsidiary, keeping detailed records, and creating reporting mechanisms. None of these measures guarantee that the parent company will not be held liable, but all of them may be considered as mitigating factors in determining whether to file a suspicion or accusation.
4.3 Can a company be liable for the corrupt actions of a third-party agent engaged to help it obtain or retain business or business advantage (such as government or regulatory actions or approvals)? If so, are there measures recognized in law, enforcement, or regulatory guidance to mitigate this liability?
A company can be liable for the corrupt actions of a third-party agent if it is identified that the third-party agent acted in accordance with article 14 of the Penal Code (see above, question 4.1). When working with third-party agents it is thus also important to establish clear rules for the co-operation and be proactive against all illegal activity and inactivity, in order to not be liable for the actions or inactions of a third-party agent. Aside from that, there are no specific measures to mitigate this liability besides what is noted above in 4.2. This is not to say that in such and other corporate criminal liability cases it is not possible for the company to argue and demonstrate that the person actually acted for their own (not the companies’) benefit, that the act was unavoidable for the company and thus the company should not be held criminally liable.
4.4 What are the sanctions for the corporate criminal entity?
The sanctions for corporate entity liability include fines (misdemeanors), pecuniary punishments (crimes), confiscation of assets, and extended confiscation of assets.
The maximum amount of misdemeanor fines varies (typically EUR 400,000 nowadays), but the maximum pecuniary punishment is EUR 40 million, or a % of its annual turnover.
5 Criminal Proceedings for Bribery and Corruption Cases
5.1 What authorities can prosecute corruption crimes?
Only the Estonian Prosecutor’s Office has the authority to prosecute crimes. In corruption cases, typically the State Prosecutor’s Office is in charge.
At the out-of-court investigation stage, i.e., before taking the matter to court, the prosecution is aided by various subordinate authorities such as the police (incl. the Estonian Internal Security Service, especially in cases of corruption).
5.2 Is there a legal obligation to report bribery and corruption cases? If so, to whom does it apply and what are the sanctions for failing to meet such an obligation?
According to article 6 section (1) of the Anti-Corruption Act, an official is not permitted to conceal violations of the prohibitions specified in section (1) of article 3 of the Anti-Corruption Act or any other incidents of corruption known to the official (see above, question 2.2). Therefore, Estonian law stipulates the obligation to report bribery and corruption cases for public officials.
For private persons (both natural and legal), it is only punishable to not report criminal offenses in the first degree (article 307 section (1) of the Penal Code). A criminal offense in the first degree is an offense the maximum punishment prescribed for which in the Penal Code for a natural person is imprisonment for a term of more than five years or life imprisonment (article 4 section (2) of the Penal Code). Therefore, private persons are obligated to report accepting bribes and giving bribes, if committed at least twice, by a group, by requesting a bribe, or on a large-scale basis (articles 294 section (2) and 298 section (2) accordingly). Failure to report a crime is punishable by a pecuniary punishment or up to three years imprisonment for natural persons and by a pecuniary punishment for legal persons.
5.3 Is there any civil or administrative enforcement against corruption crimes?
Consequences against corruption crimes can involve administrative and civil issues, including claims for damages. For example, if corruption has led to a breach of contract or financial loss, the victim can file a claim for damages in a civil court. Administrative proceedings are used when there is a violation of public law obligations. For example, a government agency may initiate an administrative procedure to investigate and sanction an official involved in corrupt activities. Such proceedings can lead to disciplinary actions, incl. termination from office.
5.4 What powers do the authorities have generally to gather information when investigating corruption crimes?
If criminal proceedings have been initiated, the authorities have vast options for gathering information: requesting documents and data from all parties, conducting interrogations, requesting court approvals, and on that basis conducting searches, monitoring communication, seizing and confiscating property, etc.
5.5 Is there any form of leniency law in your jurisdiction, allowing a party to a bribery or corruption crime to voluntarily confess to the crime in exchange for a release from liability or reduction of the penalty?
There is no specific remedy for bribery or corruption crimes.
That said, in connection with the release of liability, according to article 205 section (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Prosecutor’s Office may terminate criminal proceedings in respect of the suspect or accused – subject to their consent – if they have provided significant assistance towards ascertaining the facts comprising the subject-matter of evidence in relation to a criminal offense pursuing which is important for public interest reasons and if, without such assistance, detection of the offense and collection of evidence concerning it would not have been possible or would have had to overcome serious difficulties.
Separately, in connection with the reduction of liability, according to article 57 section (1) subsection 3) of the Penal Code, mitigating circumstances are, inter alia, appearance for voluntary confession, sincere remorse, or active assistance in the detection of the offense. The maximum rate of a mitigated punishment shall not exceed two-thirds of the maximum rate of the punishment provided by law and the minimum rate of a mitigated punishment shall be the minimum rate of the corresponding type of punishment provided for in the General Part of the Penal Code.
5.6 Can a person plea bargain in corruption cases? If so, how is such a process conducted?
In Estonia, it is possible to engage in plea bargaining in criminal cases, including corruption offenses. Plea bargaining allows the defendant and the prosecutor to reach an agreement on the punishment, which is then approved by the court.
Plea bargaining is possible if the circumstances relating to the subject matter of the corruption case and the evidence are clear and the accused agrees to it (article 239 section (2) subsection 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).
Typically, plea agreement negotiations are initiated out-of-court prior to the Prosecutors’ Office taking the matter to court. The agreement is done in written format after the terms have been negotiated between the parties. The agreement is signed by the accused, the defense counsel, and the prosecutor. After the conclusion of the agreement, the prosecutor sends the materials of the criminal case together with the agreement to the court for approval. If the agreement meets the statutory criteria, the court will approve the agreement. A (public) court hearing will take place prior to the court approving the agreement to ensure that all parties understand the content of the agreement.