When corruption is discussed, it is almost immediately associated with the public sector, as it is commonly linked to public officials, public procurement, public contracts or administrative decisions.<\/p>\n
Indeed, it is in this context that most corruption cases come to public attention.<\/p>\n
However, corruption is not a phenomenon exclusive to dealings with the State.<\/p>\n
Within purely private business relationships, situations such as a supplier offering a personal benefit to the person responsible for procurement in order to secure the continuation of a contract, the payment of a “commission” to someone with decision-making power over the selection of a particular service provider, or granting benefits to an employee in exchange for favouring one proposal over others may all give rise to criminal liability.<\/p>\n
In situations such as these, distinguishing between a legitimate business practice, a commercial incentive and the granting of an improper advantage can be particularly complex.<\/p>\n
Under Portuguese law, corruption in international trade and in the private sector is governed by Law No. 20\/2008 of 21 April<\/strong>.<\/p>\n According to this legislation, a private sector employee who requests or accepts an undue advantage in exchange for performing or omitting an act in breach of their professional duties, as well as anyone who promises or grants such an advantage, may incur criminal liability. This remains one of the risks that companies are often least aware of.<\/p>\n In many industries, certain practices have gradually become normalised over time, including gifts, travel, payments to intermediaries, commercial commissions or other benefits associated with maintaining or obtaining business relationships.<\/p>\n While not all such practices are necessarily criminal, it is essential to assess the surrounding circumstances, the purpose of the benefit and the connection between that benefit and the duties owed by the person receiving it.<\/p>\n The greatest risk for private entities often lies in the lack of clearly defined procedures.<\/p>\n Where procurement criteria are not clearly established, payments to intermediaries are not transparent, conflicts of interest are not adequately monitored, or certain benefits are granted outside the company’s formal procedures, what may internally be regarded as a legitimate business practice can be interpreted very differently during a criminal investigation.<\/p>\n In such circumstances, the risk is not necessarily limited to the individual who received or granted the benefit; it may also extend to the company itself.<\/p>\n For this reason, it is increasingly important for private organisations to establish robust internal procedures, identify risks at an early stage and respond promptly to any indications of irregularities.<\/p>\n Private corruption is not merely a theoretical risk or an academic extension of the traditional concept of corruption.<\/p>\n Rather, it represents a genuine corporate criminal risk, often arising from practices that have long been embedded and accepted within an organisation.<\/p>\nHow can companies prevent these risks?<\/h2>\n