Are there effective measures in place for personnel found to have taken part in forms of bribery and corruption, and is there evidence that these measures are being carried out?
Norway score: 100/100
Offences are not defined; no evidence of other formal mechanisms. Or the military are exempt from law.
Bribery and/or corruption are not defined offences in law that apply to the defence sector, but there are wider legal mechanisms in place (e.g. national laws supported by policies, regulations, or other laws) used to address this.
Bribery and/or corruption are defined offences in law that clearly apply to the defence sector, but 2 or more of the following mechanisms are not provided for: offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting bribes. Sanctions exist in law, but maximum penalties constitute less than 1 year imprisonment or weak fines that would not act as a deterrent.
Bribery and/or corruption are defined offences in law that clearly apply to the defence sector, but 2 or more of the following mechanisms are not provided for: offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting bribes. Possible sanctions include criminal prosecution/ incarceration, dismissal, and considerable financial penalties.
There are a range of clearly defined offences in law that clearly apply to the defence sector. These offences cover (at a minimum) offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty. Possible sanctions include criminal prosecution/ incarceration, dismissal, and considerable financial penalties.
The Norwegian Penal Code criminalises offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting bribes. It distinguishes between acts of “corruption” and “aggravated corruption”, which can be distinguished from other crimes of corruption by being carried out by or toward a public official, beside the size of the economic gain, and whether false accounting information has been prepared . The Penal Code §388 proscribes a punishment of up to 10 years imprisonment for aggravated corruption. The Penal Code applies to all types of employment, office or assignment for public and private employers and principals; it therefore also applies to the defence sector. The Defence Acquisition Regulation (§2-13) states explicitly that defence sector employees who commit corruption are subject to §387, §388 and §389 of the Penal Code, which specify punishments for corruption, aggravated corruption and trading in influence . The Military Disciplinary Act regulates the Armed Forces’ use of military disciplinary measures and punishments. It provides for punishment through either fines or a prison term for various kinds of misconduct, though it does not mention corruption explicitly . In addition, Section 10.19 of the State Personnel Handbook 2020 provides guidelines for dealing with corruption by civil servants . It mentions dismissal and other disciplinary sanctions for corruption and specifies that the issue should be dealt with independently of criminal prosecution. For details on the disciplinary sanctions and procedures, the State Personnel Handbook refers to the Civil Servants Act .
 Ministry of Justice and Public Security. Penal Code. Oslo: Ministry of Justice and Public Security, 2005. Accessed 27 February 2020. https://lovdata.no/dokument/NLE/lov/2005-05-20-28
 Ministry of Defence. Anskaffelsesregelverk for forsvarssektoren (ARF) [Defence Acquisition Regulation]. Accessed 30 March 2020. https://lovdata.no/dokument/INS/forskrift/2013-10-25-1411
 Ministry of Defence. Lov om militær disiplinærmyndighet (disiplinærloven) [Act on Disciplinary Action]. Oslo: Ministry of Defence, 1988. Accessed 3 April 2020. https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1988-05-20-32/KAPITTEL_2#KAPITTEL_2
 Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation. Statens personalhåndbok 2020 [State Employee Handbook 2020]. Oslo: Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation, 2020. Accessed 27 February 2020. https://lovdata.no/dokument/SPH/sph-2020
 Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation. Lov om statens ansatte mv. (statsansatteloven) [Civil Service Act]. Oslo: Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation, 2020. Accessed 3 April, 2020. https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2017-06-16-67#KAPITTEL_3
Norway score: 100/100
There is a complete failure to investigate or prosecute, even in the face of clear evidence.
Instances of bribery or corruption are superficially investigated or rarely disclipined.
Instances of bribery or corruption are investigated but not often disciplined. There is clear undue influence in the decision making process.
Instances of bribery or corruption are investigated or disciplined through formal processes, but undue political influence is attempted and sometimes effective at derailing prosecutions.
Instances of bribery or corruption are investigated or disciplined through formal processes and without undue political influence.
According to Section 55 of the Criminal Procedure Act, prosecution authorities shall act objectively in all of their actions, including the investigation phase, when a decision to prosecute is made and a case is tried . The law is aimed at forestalling undue political influence. In October 2018, a former commander of the Royal Norwegian Navy was convicted of aggravated corruption and embezzlement in his capacity as a public officer in the Procurement Division of the Armed Forces’ Logistics Organisation . The case was investigated by the Norwegian National Authority for Investigation and Prosecution of Economic and Environmental Crime (ØKOKRIM), a unit responsible for investigating and prosecuting economic crime, including issues in the defence sector. The former commander was paid bribes to help secure the sale of 7 decommissioned naval vessels to CAS-Global Ltd., a UK based company. He was also convicted of contravention of the Export Control Act for misleading the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that the end user of the vessels was CAS-Global Ltd., despite it being a Nigerian company. The former commander was sentenced to 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.
 Ministry of Justice and Public Security. Lov om rettergangsmåten i straffesaker (Straffeprosessloven) [The Criminal Procedure Act]. Oslo: Ministry of Justice and Public Security, 1981. Accessed 18 March 2020. https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1981-05-22-25
 TI Norway. Korrupsjonsdommer i Norge 2003-2019. Oslo: TI Norway, 2020. Retrieved 18 March 2020 from http://transparency.no/wp-content/uploads/Domssamling2019_web_.pdf
Compare scores by country
Please view this page on a larger screen for the full stats.
|Country||35a. Sanctions||35b. Enforcement|
|Albania||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Algeria||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Angola||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Argentina||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Armenia||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Australia||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Azerbaijan||50 / 100||25 / 100|
|Bahrain||50 / 100||25 / 100|
|Bangladesh||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Belgium||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Bosnia and Herzegovina||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Botswana||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Brazil||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Burkina Faso||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Cameroon||100 / 100||0 / 100|
|Canada||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Chile||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|China||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Colombia||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Cote d'Ivoire||100 / 100||0 / 100|
|Denmark||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Egypt||25 / 100||0 / 100|
|Estonia||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Finland||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|France||75 / 100||75 / 100|
|Germany||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Ghana||75 / 100||50 / 100|
|Greece||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Hungary||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|India||75 / 100||75 / 100|
|Indonesia||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Iran||75 / 100||50 / 100|
|Iraq||25 / 100||0 / 100|
|Israel||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Italy||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Japan||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Jordan||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Kenya||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Kosovo||25 / 100||75 / 100|
|Kuwait||25 / 100||0 / 100|
|Latvia||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Lebanon||50 / 100||NEI|
|Lithuania||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Malaysia||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Mali||100 / 100||0 / 100|
|Mexico||75 / 100||25 / 100|
|Montenegro||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Morocco||0 / 100||25 / 100|
|Myanmar||0 / 100||25 / 100|
|Netherlands||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|New Zealand||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Niger||100 / 100||0 / 100|
|Nigeria||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|North Macedonia||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Norway||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Oman||25 / 100||25 / 100|
|Palestine||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Philippines||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Poland||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Portugal||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Qatar||25 / 100||25 / 100|
|Russia||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Saudi Arabia||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Serbia||75 / 100||50 / 100|
|Singapore||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|South Africa||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|South Korea||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|South Sudan||50 / 100||25 / 100|
|Spain||75 / 100||50 / 100|
|Sudan||25 / 100||0 / 100|
|Sweden||75 / 100||100 / 100|
|Switzerland||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Taiwan||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Tanzania||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Thailand||50 / 100||0 / 100|
|Tunisia||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Turkey||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Uganda||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Ukraine||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|United Arab Emirates||50 / 100||25 / 100|
|United Kingdom||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|United States||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Venezuela||75 / 100||0 / 100|
|Zimbabwe||100 / 100||75 / 100|