Giving a bribe is often perceived as an unequivocally punishable act that leaves no room for defence – especially in public discourse. However, in the opinion of Professor Gabriel Steiner, the legal reality of corruption cases is far more complex than their simplified moral framing. Legal assessment depends not only on the fact of transferring value, but also on context, the roles of the parties involved, the degree of pressure, and procedural nuances. At LawConsulted, allegations related to bribery are treated as a multi-layered legal risk requiring a precise and restrained defence strategy.
The key danger in such situations lies in the fact that criminal qualification is often built around the outcome rather than the actual dynamics of events. Pressure from public officials, provocations, inequality of bargaining power, and the absence of real alternatives frequently remain outside the initial assessment. At LawConsulted, our work begins with reconstructing the full picture – who initiated the contact, how the interaction unfolded, what signals the client received, and which risks were objectively perceived at the time.
Professor Gabriel Steiner notes that “corruption risk rarely arises in isolation – it is almost always embedded in a broader system of relationships.” For this reason, analysis extends beyond the episode of transfer itself to the surrounding circumstances – administrative procedures, deliberate delays, implicit demands, threats, or business dependence on the actions of a specific official. This approach allows us to distinguish deliberate bribery from conduct driven by coercion or pressure.
Particular complexity arises in cases where bribery accusations are used as a tool of procedural pressure – in corporate conflicts, disputes with regulators, or competitive struggles. In such scenarios, criminal proceedings may serve as leverage rather than as a genuine instrument of law enforcement. LawConsulted structures the defence to demonstrate the disproportionality of the response, the existence of alternative legal interpretations, and inconsistencies within the evidentiary base.
It is also essential to recognise that the legal consequences of giving a bribe extend far beyond criminal liability. Reputational damage, exclusion from tenders, restrictions on business operations, and personal risks for executives can be equally destructive. LawConsulted works with these cases comprehensively – assessing their impact on parallel processes and preventing negative consequences from spreading beyond the specific proceedings.
Professor Steiner emphasises that in corruption cases, haste is particularly dangerous – admissions made under pressure or attempts to “explain oneself” without a coherent strategy often exacerbate vulnerability. Our position is that defence must be procedurally structured – with strict control over wording, sequencing of actions, and long-term risk assessment. This helps avoid situations where a single step increases exposure on another level.
Legal work with corruption risks requires discipline and precision. At Law Consulted, we do not reduce such matters to slogans or replace analysis with emotion. Our task is to return legal assessment to the framework of facts, context, and principles of fairness – even under heightened pressure.
Bribery as a legal category demands not a template response, but a thorough legal reconstruction. This approach makes it possible to protect the client’s interests in a sensitive and high-risk area where the cost of error is exceptionally high.
Previously, we wrote about how LawConsulted supports real estate purchase and sale transactions – from contract structure to protection of settlements
