In the corruption and illegal immigration case made public by the public prosecutor's office this week, criticism has emerged regarding the office's inability to disclose the identities of the fraudsters to other institutions and administrations – due to a lack of legal basis for doing so.
The prosecutor general's office had already flagged this issue before the current investigation began. It did so in its opinion on the overhaul of the Ju-Cha database, which was intended to introduce a mechanism allowing the public prosecutor to inform both public and private employers about crimes or offences committed by their staff.
However, the Council of State rejected the initial text proposed by then-Minister of Justice Sam Tanson, deeming it too broad. As a result, a specific list of offences was incorporated into the text, limiting the public prosecutor's ability to share information solely to cases involving murder, paedophilia, or similarly serious offences. In January 2023 – several months before the investigation into the current immigration case commenced – the prosecutor general's office responded by stating that restricting the right to share information to a predetermined list "defies common sense and cannot be justified."
The document further questioned: "Therefore, when a civil servant is guilty of fraud, breach of trust, theft, embezzlement of public funds, corruption, forgery, counterfeiting, incitement to hatred, etc., would the public prosecutor not have the right to immediately inform the relevant ministry in order to initiate disciplinary proceedings and prevent a disturbance of public order?"
The public prosecutor's office also warned at the time that, under the proposed restrictions, civil servants could only be suspended if they committed an offence explicitly on the list – since authorities would not be permitted to share information about other offences. Notably, corruption is not among the listed offences.
The text of the law was subsequently amended, but the Council of State raised a formal objection for a second time. The Chamber of Deputies ultimately backed down. The version of the law passed and brought into force only a few weeks ago once again includes a list that severely limits the public prosecutor's ability to share information. The offences under investigation in the current case are not on that list.
