Summary

There have been proceedings in recent years in which charges have been brought against members of management bodies of state companies under the Sections of the Penal Code that presume acting as an official. However, starting from 1 January 2015, the definition of an official established in subsection 288 (1) of the Penal Code does not include private persons or employees of legal persons governed by private law, calling into question holding the members of a management body of a state company as a legal person governed by private law liable for offences committed as an official.

Operations of a state company are regulated by the Commercial Code. The objective of a state company, just like a privately-owned company, is to earn a profit. On the other hand, state companies are (or at least should be) founded in certain strategic areas and should therefore primarily serve public interests and perform public duties.

Where does the state end and business begin in state companies? Whether and to what extent are the members of the management bodies of state companies obligated to take into consideration the interests of the state as the sole shareholder of the company, and to what extent in the business interests of the company? It also leads us to the question of whether or not the members of the management bodies of state companies, which should primarily serve public interests, perform public duties in their operations. It brings us to the question of whether the members of management bodies of state companies can or should be considered officials within the meaning of subsection 2 (1) of the Anti-corruption Act and subsection 288 (1) of the Penal Code. The article further analyses these issues.