جريمة الوساطة : دراسة مقارنة

Abstract EN

The law has criminalized the public servant's breach of his legally established job duties by responding to mediation presented to him by a person with whom he has certain social relations, such as friendship or kinship, as this employee’s behavior is considered one of the administrative corruption crime punishable by law.

But the reality indicates that this type of the behavior that occurs frequently in the public office and is routinely practiced as if it were permissible behavior that does not subject the perpetrator to punishment.

The reason is due - on the one hand - to the difficulty of proving this crime, which led to its repeated occurrence with confidence prevailing in the souls of those who come because of the failure to activate the legal texts on this crime by the competent authorities, and on the other hand, to the nature of our societies in which kinship, friendship and knowledge play a great role in the field of public office.

This role makes relatives, friends and influential people intervene by requesting, recommending or mediating with the public servant to compel him to abstain from work unjustly, from achieving his job or deliberately breaching the duties imposed by the job, as a preference for relatives or friends over others, a preference that is not permitted by law, of course.

Therefore, studying the mediation crime according to the comparative analytical approach requires researching what is the mediation crime in terms of defining it, highlighting its identity and the reason for criminalization in it, then knowing the elements of this crime from an assumed corner in addition to the material and moral pillars, and finally researching the punishment decided for this crime represented by the punishment criminal penalties specified in the penal code, as well as the disciplinary punishment prescribed in accordance with administrative laws.