EM warns: criminal liability in procurement could destroy entire corruption system

The Ministry of Economics has published a desperate warning that introducing criminal liability in procurement could have unforeseen consequences. In Riga, officials are rushing to explain that the administrative process is much more suitable than criminal proceedings, because there you can solve everything with a monetary fine without disturbing the foundations of business ethics.

The ministry is particularly worried that criminal proceedings could deter entrepreneurs from cooperating with the Competition Council. As an EM expert explains: "If people know they could end up in prison, they won't tell the truth about price coordination anymore. This is completely contrary to our traditional approach!" Here in Liepaja, walking along the North Pier during a storm, such an argument would sound about as convincing as trying to persuade the sea about the necessity of good weather.

The biggest concern is that in two parallel systems, the same evidence will have to be analyzed. The ministry is outraged: "Why should we spend twice as many resources to prove the same thing?" It seems that double bookkeeping is acceptable only in business, but not in the justice system. The situation becomes particularly comical because criminal proceedings require proving guilt "beyond reasonable doubt," while until now it was enough to have signs of economic logic.

Meanwhile, the ministry offers a revolutionary solution — artificial intelligence systems for procurement oversight. Because, of course, nothing can replace human intuition about prohibited agreements better than a robot that analyzes data. At least the robot won't be able to warn about criminal liability risks and will continue to stay silent about traditional business practices.