Korruptionsprävention

The Federal Criminal Police Office defines corruption as "the abuse of public office [...] in favour of another, at the latter's instigation or on one's own initiative, in order to obtain an advantage for oneself or a third party, with the occurrence or expectation of the occurrence of damage or disadvantage to the general public [...].

In simple terms: the abuse of a position in order to obtain an unlawful advantage for oneself or another. In our area, the acceptance of advantages and corruptibility according to §§ 331 and 332 StGB are relevant.

As a public (and predominantly publicly funded) institution, the university enjoys the trust of society in science and administration. Corruption damages this trust and thus the reputation of the university. Corruption influences decisions and results to the detriment of the general public.

Some activities in the university environment are considered to be at risk of corruption:

• Conducting examinations and evaluating examination results.
• Selection and procurement decisions, e.g. for equipment, laboratory supplies.
• Close contacts with external companies.
• Acquisition of third-party funds.
• Personnel decisions

All of these activities should and must be constantly performed in the local environment. It is therefore all the more important that the people involved are always aware of the applicable regulations and limits.

In legal terms, gifts and rewards are benefits to which there is no entitlement. Benefits can be tangible or intangible.

Advantages are e.g:

• Monetary payments
• Provision of vouchers, admission tickets, etc.
• Provision of material assets (spirits, food, clothing, vehicles, construction machinery)
• Disproportionately high payment for secondary activities (lectures, preparation of expert opinions)
• Taking or inviting people on trips, providing accommodation
• Prize money or honours (awarding of medals and titles)
• Granting of sexual contacts
• Favourable admission to associations or clubs etc.

A benefit may also be granted to related third parties (spouse, children).

Social adequacy plays an important role in the context of corruption offences: an act that is punishable in principle (such as accepting an advantage) is to be denied criminal relevance with the support of social adequacy. In other words: because something is socially customary and perceived as appropriate, it is not punishable.

This vague concept does not make it any easier to assess whether an act is permitted or not. There are many factors to consider: what position does a person hold? What is the relationship between giver and receiver? What is the situation? Etc.

But most people have a good gut feeling for these questions. The so-called headline test is also very helpful: Imagine your action was the subject of a headline in a tabloid. What would this headline arouse in the average reader? Outrage or boredom?

Do you have doubts? Then say no!

In principle, employees of the University may not accept any gifts or rewards from third parties (including students) in their official capacity.

A general exception applies to low-value gifts such as mass promotional items (e.g. pens, calendars) and customary, appropriate hospitality (e.g. coffee and sandwiches at a meeting).

Further exceptions require the (written) authorisation of the superior.

It is perfectly understandable and customary in our culture for students to want to thank the people who have accompanied them on their journey after graduation.

Here too, you can therefore accept small tokens of appreciation (cards, flowers in the usual amount) from students. You and your colleagues will develop a good feeling for what is customary and in which cases you have the impression that the gift is inappropriate.

Make sure that you only accept thank-you notes when you no longer need to evaluate the student.

This is still a fairly widespread practice with unsolicited gifts from business or cooperation partners.

From a legal perspective, the problem here is that the person who receives the gift initially accepts it and thus fulfils the offence of accepting an advantage - it does not matter what happens to the gift afterwards.

If the gift is not of low value, we recommend returning the gift. Sample letters for this case are available from the Compliance department.

Gifts should not be sent to employees' private addresses, as this does not ensure the necessary transparency and gives the giver and recipient the impression of secrecy. It is therefore in your own interest to return gifts that you have received at your private address and document this.

No, cash gifts may not be accepted and are not acceptable under any circumstances.

In 2002, the Federal Court of Justice actually ruled that the acceptance of third-party funds fulfils the offence of accepting benefits. Of course, the Federal Court of Justice recognised that there is a contradiction here with the fulfilment of university lecturers' official duties and that the offence must therefore be interpreted restrictively.

"However, a prerequisite for such a restriction of the offence of accepting an advantage is that the third-party funds to be raised are not only in substance funding for research and teaching, but that they are also subject to the procedure prescribed in third-party funding law (notification and approval)." BGH, judgement of 23 May 2002 - 1 StR 372/01 (Heidelberg Regional Court)

Conclusion: The acquisition of third-party funds is part of your official duties and should of course not be made more difficult. However, for your own protection, always adhere to the university processes for the display and approval of third-party funding.

It is in the nature of science and research that sometimes highly specialised devices/products are used, for which there is rarely a market with a large number of suppliers. In the interests of your research, you will therefore sometimes need to liaise closely with companies. You meet frequently, you may visit the company headquarters for device demonstrations, etc. On the face of it, these are risk factors for corruption. Nevertheless, it should not hinder you in your day-to-day research. Therefore, make sure it is customary and appropriate:

• "Travelling to visit the company?" "No problem, at your own expense"
• "Acceptance of a snack at the meeting?" "No problem!"
• "Participation in the evening programme with presentations and discussions?" "No problem!"
• "Attending a lavish dinner followed by a concert or stadium visit? "No, thank you!"

If the discussions with a company are followed by a procurement procedure, make sure you comply with the documentation requirements and observe the dual control principle in the processes - in your own interest.

Enjoy the professional exchange and inform yourself comprehensively.

For everything that goes beyond the professional part of an event (catering, non-professional supporting programme, conference venue), ensure that it is customary and appropriate.

• "A snack/buffet with the usual range of food and drinks or a university canteen meal is offered at lunchtime." "No problem, as social adequacy is given."
• "You are a consultant and are invited to a small group lunch on the fringes of the event." "Not a very clear-cut case, possible in individual cases."
• "There is a non-technical supporting programme." "Here, too, the magic word is social adequacy."
• "During a break in the event or after the technical part, a group walk with a guided tour to a local attraction is offered." "Usually not a problem."

After the end of the event, a visit to a high-class concert or theatre performance is offered, which is rather problematic.

The fact that the event is also interesting for partners is usually an indication that the entertainment part of the event is at the centre of the event rather than the technical part. It is therefore only permitted to bring partners along in very limited individual cases. This is particularly the case if you are attending a social event (e.g. a ball) as a representative of the university and attending with a partner is in line with the customary attendance at such an event.

If you are giving the presentation free of charge, you should ensure that this is in line with the reimbursement rates under state travel expense legislation. Especially if you have a current or future business relationship with the inviting organisation or if references to current or planned procurement procedures are recognisable.

If you receive a fee, ensure that the service and consideration are fully documented in the contract.

Sponsorship differs from a donation in that there is an agreed consideration, which usually consists of advertising for the sponsor.

The university's guidelines on donations and sponsoring provide information on when sponsoring is permitted at the university and which requirements must be met.

The consequences may vary depending on the severity of the incident. Under service or labour law, you could face warnings or dismissal. Under criminal law, fines or even imprisonment could be imposed if it is proven that you are actively involved in corrupt behaviour.

If you are already involved in a questionable situation, it is advisable to disclose this immediately. Honest and complete disclosure can actually have a mitigating effect on possible consequences under criminal or employment law. Contact your superior or the University's Anti-Corruption Officer in confidence.

If you recognise corruption in a dependent relationship, you have the opportunity to report this safely and anonymously at the university. You can use the internal reporting office in the Compliance Office for an anonymous report or contact the Anti-Corruption Officer confidentially.

 

Your report will help to maintain integrity and transparency. And ultimately serve the university and society.