|
József Kó:
Corruption crimes in the light of statistical
data
- Introduce
- The tendencies
-
 Total
number of crimes and number of corruption crimes becoming
known between 1972 and 1999: graph
and table
- Corruption in the period of the changing
political system
- Corruption crimes
- The
development of corruption crimes (official corruption, economic
corruption, misuse of power) becoming known between 1972
and 1999: table
- The perpetrators of corruption crimes
- The
development of the number of crimes becoming known and the
number of perpetrators between 1972 and 1999: graph
- Total
number of criminals and number of corruption criminals becoming
known between 1972 and 1999: table
- The
development of the number of corruption crimes and the number
of perpetrators that become known between 1972 and 1999:
graph
- The
development of the number of perpetrators becoming known
in the individual corruption crime groups (official corruption,
economic corruption, misuse of power) between 1972 and 1999:
graph and
table
- Corruption
crime criminals judged guilty according to age (table)
and criminals in general judged guilty according to age
(table)
- Criminals
and corruption criminals according to academic qualifications:
graphs and
tables
- Corruption
crime criminals judged guilty according to punishment and
criminals in general judged guilty according to punishment
1980-1999 (tables)
Corruption
crime perpetrators and criminals generally according to
punishment (graphs)
Introduce
A whole library of literature on the sociology of corruption
has been written. Many have examined it from many approaches,
analyses of its occurrence, effect mechanism, its function
in socio-economic life. Today it is a topic of widespread
public interest. This is backed up by its permanent presence
in the written and electronic media. For specialists dealing
with criminology, criminal statistics in the middle of this
great interest one characteristic feature of corruption crimes
sticks out: As compared to the sum total of crimes a negligible
number of such cases appear in the statistics reports.
Compared to the 5-600 thousand crimes occurring a year, the
500-1000 cases of corruption is a very small proportion. In
the last five years the proportion did not exceed 0.2 percent.
It is obvious then that this is not a phenomenon that appears
strongly in the crime statistics, and its importance, significance
is not given by the number of registered cases. A very difficult
point in victimology is the examination of corruption type
cases, this is especially difficult in Hungary as according
to the law both (or more) of the parties participating are
committing a crime, and are liable to be punished. So someone
who admits to corrupting someone is recognising the committing
of a crime, so because of this it is difficult to collect
reliable data in this subject. If we take into consideration
a certain amount of incidence, the opinions regarding its
precise amount are divided. The scale extends from a multiplier
of a few times to 15-20 times. We do not know the precise
amount, but all specialists agree that only a fraction of
the actual cases are made known to the authorities and put
into the statistics. So we have to treat these statistics
as the tip of the iceberg. On examining the phenomenon we
cannot get to know its whole extent, but we can collect a
lot of relevant information that can help in the understanding
of the nature of this social phenomenon that many are concerned
with.
In the following we make an attempt at this. Taking into
consideration the characteristic features of the statistics
system, its deficiencies and advantages, we processed the
data collected by the crime statistics of crimes that had
become known in connection with corruption. The findings can
not be generalised for the whole of the phenomenon, but the
analysis of the criminalised cases can provide us with a starting
point for further examinations and analyses.
The tendencies
After examining series of data from a longer period we can
determine that the number of crimes in connection with corruption
fluctuates significantly. In subsequent year it is just as
likely for the number of registered cases to increase by one
and a half - two times as decrease by a half as compared to
the number in the previous year. I am afraid that reality
is far from the theory that tries to explain this large fluctuation
with the changes in human behaviour. It is not very probable
that the opinion and behaviour of citizens changes this fast
from one year to the next, inciting them to undertake first
more then half as many corruption crimes. It is much more
probable that corruption has a relatively stable level existing
among some kind of regular conditions, which is present in
the given society, and of which certain cases come to the
surface, the police become aware of them and procedure is
started. The number of these procedures, however, especially
in a particular year, does not give a faithful picture of
the "corruption status" of the country. It is more likely
to be in connection with the degree of police activity or
processes in society. And here we have arrived at a counter-argument
that is often sounded against crime statistics according to
which crime statistics do not follow the crime situation so
much as the success of the activity and work of the justice
bodies, the police and the courts.
The proportion of corruption cases as compared to the total
number of crimes only reached 1 percent in a single year,
it is usually around a few tenths of a percent. With respect
to frequency to peak year up till now was 1979 with 1353 cases.
And the year in which the least cases became known was 1991,
then 344 cases were identified by the authorities. Table
1 contains the series of data starting from 1972.
As opposed to the development of the total number of registered
crimes a characteristic tendency can not be determined for
corruption crimes. While the frequency of crimes shows a clear
growth tendency, the number of corruption crimes oscillates
generally around the 800 value.
A separate point of interest of the data is that for crimes
in general the significant degree of growth that can be observed
in the period following the change of political system is
not at all apparent in the case of corruption crimes, what
is more a significant decrease took place in this period.
The minimum value recorded till now was in 1991. The differing
behaviour of the two series of data is illustrated in the
following graph: Graph
1.
In order to understand and explain this special behaviour
we need to say a few words about the circumstances in the
change of political system, and in what medium the phenomena
took place, illustrated by the graph.
1. In 1989 Hungary declared its new constitution, which determined
this state as an independent, democratic republic and constitutional
state. Actually before this in, 1988-1989 important legislator
decisions had been made: laws on private companies, e.g. joint
stock companies, associations, and the freedom of association
were declared. These were the first steps on the road towards
democracy, a market economy and a constitutional state.
2. Step by step Hungary brought to life those institutions
that ensure the operation of a constitutional state. Parliamentary
government, free elections, the division of the branches of
power were created, as well as the independence of the courts,
local level government, the constitutional court, etc. In
1990 Hungary signed the European Human Rights Convention,
and in 1993 a law was passed recognising the jurisdiction
of the Strasbourg Court of Justice.
However, it is well known that a constitutional state is
at the same time a reality and a program: in itself it does
not provide wealth, nor does it decide into whose hands political
and economic power is placed and does not extinguish crime.
"Abuse of power has had a significant role in the socialist
scarce and the present feudal capitalist proto-market economy.
However, the participants in this continuous phenomenon are
partly different, their operating methods are basically different.
(It was in the realisation technique of this method that there
were very significant differences partly within a single country
in different periods and partly at the same time between different
countries.)" [Ferenc Irk: CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CHANGE OF
POLITICAL SYSTEM IN HUNGARY AND CRIME congress lecture 1995.]
3. The constitution states that the economy in Hungary is
a market economy in which public and private property is of
equal rank. This in 1989 was also a program that had to be
realised step by step. The activity of state planners and
organisers is restricted, the proportion of state ownership
is reduced, and the number of private enterprises increases
(today more than 1 million). Hungary is endeavouring to get
into European economic integration, in the interest of this
the law on co-operation and partnership with the European
Community was enacted in 1994, which for us also involves,
among other things, the legal harmonisation obligation.
And in this same period the annual frequency of corruption
crimes again starts to reach its pre-system change level.
After the social, economic, political relations had been settled
the number of corruption crimes returned to the earlier usual
annual value of 800, which it seems we can rightly treat as
being the normal status.
Corruption in the period of the changing
political system
The events of the last few years have thoroughly changed
our lives. The changing life conditions have changed the "face"
of corruption, and even more so because we are now feeling
it ourselves: there are few other social phenomena that are
as flexible and quick to adapt as corruption.
But what is the situation like today?
To put it succinctly: the further the growth and spread of
corruption, the appearance of new forms are revealed. This,
of course, is reflected to a very small extent in the criminal
statistics data registering corruption crimes. ( corruption
as a social movement has not been reduced up till now to a
criminal phenomenon.)
What effect mechanisms lie in the background of the present
growth and spread of corruption? Giving a precise answer to
this question will be only possible after a good few years,
as a result of scientific research following the completion
of the change of system. Numerous corruption-inducing factors,
however, can be outlined today.
Let's look then at some of the more obvious, important corruption
areas.
It is possible that it seems like strange or unnecessary
repetition, but in the first place we have to mention the
corruption traditions dragged over, inherited from the past.
However, this inheritance includes - and due to its closeness
in time it has exceptionally great influence - all that has
taken place during the last 40 years. In other words the corruption
that was apparent during the period of the party state - and
a part of the circumstances causing and aiding it - have been
quasi inherited. We have taken on the tradition in behaviour
patterns, out habits and judgements, our attitude and outlook.
Over and above the consciousness paradigms, the paradigms
in the institution system continue to live. The public institutions
- be they public administration, education, cultural or health
institutions - are just as slow or slower to change their
habits than the majority of people.
Interestingly then, a significant part of the corruption-causing
factors listed above are instrumental in causing the corruption
of today in the form of a sort of "right".
A general law of history - and this is valid for the history
of corruption of all the countries of the world - is that
corruption tendencies are strengthened by significant period
changes, wars, bloody and bloodless revolutions. Great social
changes have a special effect on the exploitation of the situation,
as the state disciplinary power just does not have the time
to deal with the problems of corruption - it has other tasks
which it feels are much more important.
The change of political system, the dismantling of the party
state and the creation of a constitutional state based on
democracy, and a multiparty system, although bloodless, can
be seen as a real revolutionary transformation. And as such
the fact that it was the era of the change of the political
system, meant that it was also the age of blossoming corruption.
The very simple reason for this is that corruption intentions
became stronger. (corruption is always an intentional activity;
l'art pour l'art corruption act is by definition excluded.)
In the period of large social shake ups corruption always
become obvious and crystal clear: there are those who are
motivated by getting back lost political and/or economic power;
those by maintaining endangered social status; those by the
desire to take advantage of the once in a lifetime great opportunity;
those by the acquisition and increase of political and/or
economic potentials; those by the desire to win over, keep
reliable "staunch supporters", the increase of a social base,
popularity; and those by simply earning a decent living.
Always the essence of real changes of system - be it feudalism,
capitalism or socialism - is that a new layer (class?) that
had not until that point taken part in economic (and through
that political) power gains, is given property; the central
guarantee of this property and acquisition is the state's
guarantee undertaking. As to who become new owners, how and
through what means largely determines the development of corruption
within the circumstances of a given change of system.
Again I only have to refer to historic examples to demonstrate
the validity of these statements: those getting into power
during great social changes do not usually change the means
they use to establish this new layer of owners. The instruments
used are equally the guillotine, the Gulag, the distribution
of land and relocation of people...
Today, in Hungary naturally there is none of this. There are
no violent instruments, although it must be noted that the
specialist literature treats as an axiom the idea that corruption
is the alternative to violence.
There is, however, property redistribution; through privatisation,
re-privatisation and compensation. It is a fact that there
is a necessity for the establishment of a really new layer
of owners - for such a layer that is able to use this property
in accordance with the requirements of the market economy
and effectively. The question only is how much the organisations
and institutions charged with this distribution are able to
carry out their obligations without influence; how much they
are able to decide without bias; to what extent they are able
to undertake to operate according to their own publicised
rules of procedure; how they maintain control of the public
and how much they insist on their decisions being secret and
why they are secret.
Unfortunately a long list of similar questions can be put,
and we can also suppose that the answers to these - the real,
honest answers - would uncover a multitude of corruption situations.
At the same time there is also the fact that privatisation
is always and at all times a corruption-causing factor, especially
if it is not combined with an effective system of control.
(The setting up of the State Auditor Office can be treated
as a great victory. Although its authority is restricted -
it is only entitled to inspect in advance - so it does not
have up-to-date information or special entitlements to prevent
abuse. Apart from this there are no other effective supervisory
systems in operation in Hungary at this time.)
Perhaps, it is with this outcry that the corruption situation
today in Hungary can be expressed the most descriptively;
in this way to summarise the circumstances causing corruption.
It is true that the scarce economy no longer exists - although
I do not know how an agriculture in ruins, the suffering of
industrial sub-branches sentenced to be sold off can aid the
creation of a market economy? - but the "skeleton" of the
scarce economy, its remains are still with us, and reproduce
corruption.
It is also true that private functions that became public
services have again become private functions, but through
this usually only the corruption load on the public is increased.
The tariffs of the services are unrealistically increasing,
and if you want to get these tax and VAT-free you corrupt.
The governments of the changing political system - similarly
to their predecessors - are not able to oppose the spectre
of centralisation. An example of this is that the Hungarian
State Holding Company and the State Property Agency had disposal
over an amount of property (possessing ownership or share
entitlement) that produced a decisive proportion of the Hungarian
GDP. Hopefully the legal successor of these two bodies - the
Hungarian Privatisation and State Holding Company - will learn
from the mistakes of its predecessors (and naturally further
develop their sensible efforts).
The placing of public administration on new foundations,
the more or less success of the redrawing of local government
spheres of authority - due to the paradigms of the system
of institutions - (seemingly) makes the corruption of the
council system live on.
Much of the time you can not know: whether the leaders squandering
the local government money are really corrupt, or it is just
ignorance, innocence or good intentions based on the lack
of knowledge that makes them waste money?
Corruption as a mass phenomenon of society also continues
to live in post-change Hungary, furthermore, because of the
privatisation transactions (the cases and transactions to
be found in the press give witness to this) the number of
cases has probably increased, the authorities, who are busy
with other tasks they deem to be more important, are not able
(or do not want?) to devote as much attention to investigating
these. So the justice administration bodies also, who have
become uncertain regarding their tasks and sphere of authority,
take on the struggle against this phenomenon with less intensity
and success. This uncertainty is also reflected in the decreasing
number of crime statistics data. In the second half of the
nineties the situation stabilised and the proportion of corruption
crimes has started to return to its earlier level.
Corruption crimes
Up till now we treated corruption crimes as a unified concept,
this was necessary simplification, because the Criminal Code
deals with these types of activity in many cases in law:
- The crime of corruption committed with the co-operation
of a public servant.
- The crime of corruption committed by a person in a managerial
position.
- The crime of corruption committed by other public servants
in important cases.
- The crime of corruption committed by a public servant
through breach of obligations.
- The crime of corruption committed by a person in a managerial
position, etc. through breach of obligations.
- Corruption misdemeanour committed by an employee of a
state body. (SZV)
- The crime of corruption committed by an employee of a
state body through breach of obligations.
- The crime of corruption habitually committed by an employee
of a state body.
- The crime of corruption committed in connection with
the co-operation of a member of a state body authorised
to act independently.
- Corruption.
- Committed by a member of a state body authorised to act
independently through breach of obligation.
- Committed by a member of a state body authorised to act
independently as a member of a gang.
- The misdemeanour of corruption committed by a public servant
to the detriment of public interest. (SZV)
- The crime of corruption aimed at causing a breach of obligation
by a public servant.
- Misdemeanour of aiming to cause an employee of a state
body to breach his/her obligations. (SZV)
- The crime of aiming to cause an employee of a state body
to breach his/her obligations.
- The crime of corruption committed through publication
in the press.
- The crime of abuse of power.
- The crime of causing the appearance of the corruption
of a public servant.
- The misdemeanour of the abuse of power. (SZV)
- The crime of habitually committed abuse of power.
- Abuse of power.
- Persecution of a person making a public announcement.
(SZV)
- Official corruption in international relations. (basic
instance) (SZV)
- The crime of official corruption in international relations.
- Economic corruption in international relations. (basic
instance) (SZV)
- The crime of economic corruption in international relations.
- The crime of corruption committed in international relations
through asking for an advantage.
- The crime of corruption in international relations through
breaching official obligations.
- The crime of the abuse of power in international relations.
- Crimes against the purity of international public life.
In the regulation of corruption crime a continuous criminalisation
tendency is realised. Newer and newer provisions of law are
being created bringing further cases under the force of criminal
law. Separately mentioning all the different cases would make
the discussion of the phenomenon unnecessarily detailed and
complex, therefore we have created three larger groups, which
we hope will provide a good description of the main characteristics
of the crime group under examination:
- Official corruption,
- Economic corruption,
- Misuse of power.
Table 2 shows
the development of crimes between 1972 and 1999 in this grouping.
To summarise all of these we continue to use the term corruption
crimes, to designate the criminological aspects of the whole
phenomenon. At the same time we have to consider that the
phenomenon from criminological and legislative aspects is
extremely multi-layered, and we are forced to summarise factors
that have many different characteristics in order to be understandable.
The legislative tendency clearly reflects the intention of
the legislators, according to which steps need to be taken
against the corruption phenomena appearing in the different
spheres of public life. The intention is then clear, the results,
however, of the efforts can hardly be seen. The "return" on
the 31 types of case is only a few hundred criminal cases
a year. This lack of success can be explained with many kinds
of historic, social, system of values factors. Probably every
attempt at an explanation contains real elements, but I would
not undertake to decide what combination or essence reveals
the complete truth, but within the framework of the present
document there is the possibility to take into consideration
an important criminological characteristic feature.
Corruption crimes belong to the group of crimes that do not
have victims. An important feature of these is that although
the law orders that the act be punished, which it does in
general for the protection of the victim, in this case neither
participating party, or only rarely, can be declared to be
a victim. During corruption, for example, not only is there
no victim, but both the corrupter and the person accepting
the corruption are committing a crime, and both are liable
to be punished. At the same time both parties undertake to
commit the act in the interest of acquiring some sort of advantage,
and if it is carried out "successfully" both parties leave
feeling satisfied, they both feel that the deal was "profitable"
for both of them.
This feature, however, obviously makes the work of the crime
fighting bodies difficult, as they have no victim's charge.
Characteristically information is received regarding the crime
not from those directly involved in the case, but from some
third party, or in an even more indirect manner. And during
the demonstration of the case things are not easy either,
as they cannot count on much co-operation from the "interested"
parties. But who are these interested parties, what characterises
those who commit corruption crimes?
The perpetrators of corruption crimes
Before we set out on a detailed analysis we need to give
a short review of a few of the characteristic features of
the crime statistics system in connection with the data collected
on the perpetrators of crimes.
One of the most important elements of the examination of crime
as a mass phenomenon of society is the examination of crime
statistics. Crime statistics record two elements of crimes:
firstly the crimes that become known, secondly the perpetrators
that become known. The first element registers the breach
of criminal law norm, as human behaviour, while the other
registers the persons breaching the criminal law norms. The
connection between the two is obvious, but they differ both
with respect to their content and numerically. The connection
and the character of the difference cannot be easily clarified.
The content of the statistics that record the number of
crimes that become known: It contains the number of those
acts that the authorities have got to know of, which has been
proven that they fall under legal prohibition, independently
of whether the perpetrator has been identified or not during
the procedure.
The statistics registering the perpetrators contains the data
of those persons, about whom it has been proven that they
committed a punishable act.
However, there may be more perpetrators involved with one
crime, if the crime in question was committed jointly, and
one perpetrator may commit several or many dozens of crimes,
so the data of the two statistics records cannot be directly
compared.
The development of the data of the two criminal statistics
is shown on the following graph: Graph
2.
It can be clearly seen on the graph that the two series
of data that had, in essence moved, in unison separated at
the beginning of the nineties. The fast rise in the number
of crimes was not followed by a rise in the number of perpetrators
becoming known. This can be put down to the fast deterioration
of the investigation effectiveness indicators. While the number
of crimes has increased by 4-4.5 times, the number of perpetrators
becoming known has grown by only 1.7 times.
The police have not been able to keep step with the increasing
rate of the increase of crime, in an ever-lessening proportion
the procedures finish with the perpetrator being found.
The series of data in connection with corruption crimes behave
in a completely different way, earlier we saw that the wave
of increasing crime did not appear for this group of crimes,
and the revealing indicators developed in a different way
than in the case of the other crimes. Graph
3.
The progress of the two curves is nowhere near as even as
in the case of all crimes. However, it can be clearly seen
that in this case the two curves have become closer to one
another starting from the beginning of the 1990s.
Budapest
Which means that the revealing indicators improve here. In
the eighties on average in the case of 44% of the crimes that
became known the perpetrator or perpetrators were discovered.
In the nineties this same indicator increasing by 9% was 53%.
We could also say that the police played safe and, perhaps,
initiated procedures in fewer cases, but a larger proportion
of the cases that were initiated ended successfully.
All in all this is true of corruption crimes in general, but
it is also worth separately examining the individual types
of acts, as the summarisation washes together very different
behaviours. The behaviour of the series of data of the individual
corruption crime groups can be seen on the following graph:
Graph 4.
The favourably developing revealing indicator overall is
due to the official corruption crime group, here the number
of perpetrators that became know increased significantly,
while interestingly the economic corruption group has a strongly
deteriorating revealing number. Table
3 illustrates the data of the perpetrators of corruption
crimes that became known in greater detail.
Corruption crimes behave in a different way to crimes in
general. Not only does the trend differ from other crimes
and not only do the revealing indicators develop differently,
but also the perpetrators have different characteristic features,
than criminals in general.
Examining age we can determine that that corruption criminals
(Table 8 and 9)
are significantly older than criminals in general. (Table
10 and 11) There are a minimal number of minors and young
adults (18-20) among them, and there is a much greater proportion
of those in their 40's and 50's.
A unique feature of the nineties, however, is the proportion
of criminals in their 20s significantly increased. This is
connected to the establishment of a new entrepreneur class.
Young, industrious entrepreneurs try to establish themselves
bending and sometimes breaking the legal bounds.
Examining the academic qualifications of criminals we find
significant differences between the perpetrators of other
crimes and those of corruption crimes.
Among perpetrators of corruption crimes there are twice as
many who have completed secondary school and three times as
many who have completed college, than among the perpetrators
of crimes in general.
This is illustrated in the following diagrams: Table
5 and 6, Graph
5.
So the perpetrators of corruption crimes are more educated
and characteristically older than other perpetrators.
The sentencing practices in connection with corruption crimes
are significantly different from what is generally usual.
Imprisonment sentences are given twice as often than is usual
in connection with these cases, at the same time a significant
number of these are suspended, so the proportion of imprisonment
sentences that are to be carried out is equivalent to that
experienced with other crimes. The perpetrators rarely get
other punishments.
The following diagrams show these differences well: Table
7 and 12, Graph
6.
The greater proportion of stricter imprisonment sentences
and after that the significant number of them being suspended
is the appearance of the dichotomy appearing with respect
to this act in the administration of justice. Stricter sentences
are given because the perpetrators of this dangerous act that
also has a damaging effect on the whole of society need to
be condemned, at the same time a large number of the punishments
are suspended, and usually it is not habitual criminals that
commit the acts and their social status better than that of
the average criminal which means a certain amount of "protection"
with respect to the punishments, and also everyone is aware
of the fact that these cases are only the tip of the iceberg,
and a certain understanding attitude appears in connection
with this extremely widespread phenomenon, which seems to
be apparent in the sentencing practices of the judges.
Corruption crimes form a special group of crimes. They show
characteristic features differing from those of the other
types of crime both with respect to the act and the perpetrators.
These crimes are treated differently by both specialists and
public opinion. In spite of their relatively low frequency
these cases have great significance. The importance over and
above their numerical proportion needs to be looked for in
the effect the act has on society.
Corruption is not simply a criminological problem, it is
a social phenomenon. With wide-spanning causes, stimuli and
effect mechanisms, which reach far outside the borders of
criminal law and the administration of justice. Corruption
is a social phenomenon because its existence, development
and features are determined by the given socio-economic environment,
its characteristics relationships and the changes in these,
it cannot be simplified into a criminological problem.
Its criminological appearance, presence in criminal law and
legal practice, however, shows and reflects those socio-economic
relations among which it is realised.
(National Institution of Criminology, 2000)
|
