Latvia has acceded to several international conventions and agreements, which deal with anti-bribery and corruption matters.

The key international legislation is:

• United Nations Convention Against Corruption (New York, October 31, 2003);  
• Convention Against Corruption Involving Officials (Brussels, May 26, 1997);
• OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (Paris, November 21, 1997);
• Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (Strasbourg, January 27, 1999);
• Additional protocol to the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (Strasbourg, May 15, 2003);
• Council of Europe Civil Law Convention on Corruption (Strasbourg, November 4, 1999);

The key national anti-bribery and corruption legislation includes:

• Criminal Act of the Republic of Latvia (KriminÄllikums);
• Criminal Procedure Act (KriminÄlprocesa likums)
• Act on the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau (Korupcijas novÄ“ršanas un apkarošanas biroja likums);
• Act on the Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials (Likums Par interešu konflikta novÄ“ršanu valsts amatpersonu darbÄ«bÄ);

No specific anti-bribery and corruption law has been enacted in Latvia in the last ten years. The anti-bribery and corruption laws are included in the permanent legislation and are amended from time to time.

Yes. Article 323 of the Criminal Act provides that bribe-giving to domestic public officials is a criminal offense. 

Bribe-giving is defined as handing over or offering of material value, properties or benefits of another nature, or promising a bribe upon requesting it, in person or through intermediaries for a public official, using his/her position, to perform or omit to perform some act in the interests of the giver or the person offering or promising the bribe, or in the interests of other persons, irrespective of whether the bribe handed over, offered or promised is for this public official or for any other person.
 

Yes. Article 323 of the Criminal Act provides that giving bribes to public officials is a criminal offense, whereas Article 316, § 3 provides a definition of the concept of public officials in such a way that it includes foreign public officials. 

Yes. Article 320 of the Criminal Act provides that bribetaking is a criminal offense. Bribe-taking includes requesting, extorting or accepting a bribe. The person can be charged for bribetaking, if the bribe is requested or extorted, irrespective of whether it was later received and accepted by the public official or not.

Public officials are subject to this legislation. Public officials are defined, in Article 316 of the Criminal Act as:

• Representatives of the state administration, as well as any person, who permanently or temporarily holds an office in the state administration or local government, including a state-owned or municipal capital company, and who has a right to pass decisions binding on other persons, or who has a right to carry out supervisory, control, investigation or penal functions, or dispose of the property or financial assets of the public person or its capital company.
• The State President, members of the Parliament (Saeima), Prime Minister, members of the Cabinet of Ministers, as well as officials of public authorities elected, appointed or approved officials by Saeima and the Cabinet of Ministers, heads of the local governments, their deputies and executive directors have deemed public officials holding accountable position. 
• Officials of the international organizations, international parliamentary assemblies, and international courts, and persons authorized by such agencies, as well as any person holding a position of legislative, executive, or judicial power in a foreign state, or any administrative unit thereof, irrespective of whether such a person is elected or appointed to such position, as well as any person who performs a public function abroad, including in the interests of its administrative unit, government agency or state enterprise. 

Since the criminal offenses related to bribery can be conducted by both - natural persons and corporate entities, any natural person and the corporate entity are subject to the legislation. 

Corporate entities cannot be prosecuted in Latvia. The subject of criminal liability is a natural person only. In accordance with the Criminal Act, it is possible to apply coercive measures against corporate entities, such as 1) liquidation, 2) limitation of rights, 3) confiscation of assets, 4) cash collection. 

Article 70.1 of the Criminal Act provides the grounds for applying coercive measures against a corporate entity and does not differentiate, whether the natural person is a regular employee or a senior employee (executive) of this corporate entity. The main criteria to impose coercive measures against the corporate entity is that the criminal offense is committed:

• in the interests of the legal entity; 
• the legal entity has benefited from the crime; or
• the offense is committed as a result of insufficient supervision or control of the employee by a legal entity. 

The criminal offense can be committed individually or as being part of a collegial authority of the corporate entity:

• On the basis of the right to represent the corporate entity or to act on behalf of it;
• On the basis of the right to take a decision on behalf of the corporate entity; or 
• By exercising control as part of the operation of the corporate entity.

The Criminal Act distinguishes liability for bribery (as giving, offering or promising a bribe) and bribe-taking (as receiving, requesting or extorting a bribe). 

Bribery:

The penalty for general bribery is imprisonment up to five years, short-term imprisonment (from 15 days to three months) or probation supervision or community service or a fine. 

If the bribery is perpetrated on a large scale (exceeding 50 minimum monthly salaries) or if the bribe is given by a public official or by a group of persons (based on a prior agreement), the penalty is imprisonment for up to eight years. Additionally, prohibition from holding certain government/public positions up to five years and confiscation of property can be applied.

If the bribery is committed by an organized group (association of more than two persons created for the purpose of jointly committing one or more crimes and whose members have, by prior agreement, shared responsibilities), the penalty is imprisonment from two to ten years. Additionally, prohibition from holding certain government/public positions for up to five years, confiscation of property, and probation supervision up to three years can be applied.

Bribe-taking:

If bribe-taking is committed after the conduct, for which the bribe is requested, accepted or extorted, the penalty is imprisonment up to five years or short-term imprisonment (from 15 days to three months) or probation supervision or community service or a fine. Additionally, prohibition from holding certain government/public positions for up to two years can be applied.

If bribe-taking is committed prior to the conduct, for which the bribe is requested, accepted or extorted, the penalty is imprisonment up to eight years. Additionally, property confiscation and prohibition from holding certain government/public positions for up to five years can be applied.

If the bribe-taking is conducted on a large scale (exceeding 50 minimum monthly salaries) or by a group of persons (based on a prior agreement) or the bribe is accepted after it was requested, the penalty is imprisonment from two to ten years. Additionally, prohibition from holding certain government/public positions up to five years and confiscation of property can be applied.

If bribe-taking is committed by an organized group or by a public official holding an accountable position (as defined above) or if the bribe is accepted after it was extorted, the penalty is imprisonment from three to eleven years. Additionally, prohibition from holding certain government/public positions up to five years, confiscation of property, and probation supervision up to three years can be applied.

The coercive measures, which can be applied against legal entities are (1) liquidation; (2) limitation of rights; (3) confiscation of assets; and/or (4) cash collection. Different coercive measures can be applied against the corporate entity simultaneously, except for the liquidation.

Liquidation:

Liquidation is applied only, if the corporate entity was founded for the sole purpose to commit crimes or if serious crimes or gravely serious crimes have been committed. Serious crimes are criminal offenses, for which imprisonment from three to eight years can be imposed. A gravely serious crime is defined as a criminal offense, for which imprisonment for more than eight years can be imposed. If the liquidation is imposed, all property and assets of the corporate entity are expropriated in favor of the State.

Limitation of rights:

The limitation of rights means annulment of rights or permissions of the corporate entity, and applying restrictions against the corporate entity prohibiting the corporate entity to participating in tenders, receiving state aid or benefits; or restricting in engaging in other activities as imposed by the court from one to ten years.

Confiscation of assets:

If the confiscation of assets is applied against the corporate entity, the property and assets of the corporate entity are expropriated in favor of the state. The assets, which are to be expropriated, are determined by the court. The respective assets/to be expropriated shall be explicitly provided in the decision. It is possible to confiscate assets of the corporate entity delivered to other natural persons or corporate entities if the owner is not lost. When confiscation of all assets and property is applied, the assets required to fulfill obligations against the employees, state and creditors are retained.

Cash collection:

Cash collection is a coercive measure against the corporate entity imposing an obligation to pay established amounts of cash to the State in 30 days’ time. Depending on the severity of the criminal offense, the corporate entity may be ordered to pay:

• for a criminal offense (where imprisonment from 15 days to three months can be applied against a natural person) - from EUR 2.5 thousand to EUR 5.0 million;
• for a less serious crime (where imprisonment from three months to three years can be applied against a natural person) - from EUR 5.0 thousand up to EUR 25.0 million;
• for a serious crime (where imprisonment from three years to eight years can be applied against a natural person) - from EUR 10.0 thousand to EUR 37.5 million; and
• for a particularly serious crime (where imprisonment exceeding eight years can be applied against a natural person) - from EUR 15.0 thousand up to EUR 50 million.

If the cash collection is applied, the payment can be made only from the assets of the particular corporate entity. If the cash is not paid within the 30 days term, the decision is enforced by a bailiff.

Only partially. The Criminal Act provides that the Court or the Prosecutor must follow conditions provided in the law when determining the applicable coercive measures. The Court or the Prosecutor assesses:

• actual actions of the corporate entity;
• character and consequences of the actions of the corporate entity;
• measures adopted by the corporate entity to prevent the crimes from being committed;
• size, type of business and financial status of the corporate entity;
• measures taken by the corporate entity to compensate the damages or to remedy the effects caused; and
• whether the corporate entity has reached a settlement with the victim.

The above is assessed when the decision on the application of coercive measures against the corporate entity is adopted. The existence of a compliance program designed to prevent bribery would be considered; however, it would not release the corporate entity from liability. 

There is no deferred prosecution agreement in Latvia. Leniency can be partially reached by an agreement between the prosecutor and the corporate entity on coercive measures. Agreement is possible, if: 

• the circumstances regarding the subject matter of the proof are clarified.
• the corporate entity acknowledges the fact that there was a criminal offense/crime committed.
• the corporate entity agrees to the qualification and the assessment of the harm/damages caused.
• the corporate entity agrees to conclude the agreement to apply coercive measures.

It is possible to mitigate the liability of the corporate entity by agreement since the corporate entity can propose the type and scope of the coercive measure, provide its explanations and receive legal aid.
If an agreement is reached, the prosecutor submits it for approval to the Court.