GENERAL CIVIL PENAL CODE(Norway)

Part I. General Provisions

Section 123. If a public servant misuses his position so as to violate any person's right by performing
or omitting to perform an official act, he shall be liable to fines or to loss of office or to imprisonment
for a term not exceeding one year. If he has acted for the purpose of obtaining an unlawful gain for
himself or another person, or if considerable injury or violation of rights has been wilfully caused by
the felony, he shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. 38

Section 124. A public servant who unlawfully uses his office to induce or to attempt to induce any
person to do, tolerate or omit to do anything shall be liable to fines or loss of office

. Section 125. A public servant who misleads or incites any official subordinate to him or under his
supervision in the public service to commit a felony in this service, or who assists him therein or
knowingly lets him commit such felony, or who abuses his office to incite another public servant to
commit a felony in the public service or to assist him therein shall be liable to the same penalty as
the latter. Such penalty shall apply regardless of whether the other public servant is not criminally
liable because of good faith or for any other reason

Section 127. Any person who by violence attempts to induce a public servant to perform or omit to
perform an official act or to obstruct any such performance, or who aids and abets thereto, shall be
liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, but not exceeding five years if he
commits the felony in concert with another person.

Penal Code 424 PC – Misappropriation of Public Funds in California

Criminal Defense » Penal Code » 424 PC - Misappropriation of Public Funds

Penal Code 424 PC makes it a crime for a public officer or a trustee of
public funds to misappropriate the funds for improper use. A conviction is
a felony punishable by up to 4 years in jail or prison, fines of up to
$10,000.00, and permanent disqualification from holding public office.
 Misappropriation of funds is most often charged against state and local public
officials—but it can be charged against anyone who has control of government
money. 1 2

Examples

Examples of people who might be convicted of misusing public funds include:

 The mayor of a small city uses city funds to purchase himself a luxury automobile that
he keeps even after his term is over.
 The founder and principal of a charter school takes public funds provided for the
operation of the school and lends them to her sister, who is having financial difficulties.
 A city’s mayor has used public funds to buy gifts for his mistress. In order to help him
avoid being caught, the city treasurer destroys the financial records that would prove
that this happened.

Penalties

Misappropriation of public funds is a felony.3 The potential penalties include

two (2), three (3) or four (4) years in jail or California state prison, and/or a fine
of up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

California Supreme Court Clarifies Standard for

Misuse of Public Funds Convictions
A recent California Supreme Court decision has clarified the scope of activity that can be
prosecuted as the misuse of public funds by public officials. The case involves a school district
superintendent who was convicted under Penal Code section 424 for increasing the compensation
for a contract employee without Board approval. Section 424 prohibits the misuse of public funds
by public officials who are “charged with the receipt, safekeeping, transfer, or disbursement of
public moneys.”

However, in People v. Hubbard, the California Supreme Court reversed the Court of

Appeal, noting that if a public official owes a duty to safeguard the funds of the public

agency and exerts material control over how the funds are expended, they can be

prosecuted under section 424 for misuse of public funds. If an individual merely plays a

role in the first step of a process that results in the expenditure of public funds, that

generally would not be enough to establish criminal liability.

 California Penal Code
Sec. 424 

(a)
Each officer of this state, or of any county, city, town, or district of this state, and
every other person charged with the receipt, safekeeping, transfer, or disbursement
of public moneys, who either:1.Without authority of law, appropriates the same, or
any portion thereof, to his or her own use, or to the use of another; or,2.Loans the
same or any portion thereof; makes any profit out of, or uses the same for any
purpose not authorized by law; or,3.Knowingly keeps any false account, or makes any
false entry or erasure in any account of or relating to the same; or,4.Fraudulently
alters, falsifies, conceals, destroys, or obliterates any account; or,5.Willfully refuses or
omits to pay over, on demand, any public moneys in his or her hands, upon the
presentation of a draft, order, or warrant drawn upon these moneys by competent
authority; or,6.Willfully omits to transfer the same, when transfer is required by law;
or,7.Willfully omits or refuses to pay over to any officer or person authorized by law
to receive the same, any money received by him or her under any duty imposed by
law so to pay over the same;—Is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for
two, three, or four years, and is disqualified from holding any office in this state.
(b)
As used in this section, “public moneys” includes the proceeds derived from the sale
of bonds or other evidence or indebtedness authorized by the legislative body of any
city, county, district, or public agency.
(c)
This section does not apply to the incidental and minimal use of public resources
authorized by Section 8314 of the Government Code.

Arizona

Public monies cannot be spent without legal authorization. Applicable laws include (but are not limited

to) the following: A.R.S. § 1-254 – “No statute may be construed to impose a duty on an officer, agent

or employee of this state to discharge a responsibility or to create any right in a person or group if the

discharge or right would require an expenditure of state monies in excess of the expenditure
authorized by legislative appropriation made for the specific purpose.” A.R.S. § 35-154 – “A. No

person shall incur, order or vote for the incurrence of any obligation against the state or for any

expenditure not authorized by an appropriation and an allotment. Any obligation incurred in

contravention of this chapter shall not be binding upon the state and shall be null and void and

incapable of ratification by any executive authority to give effect thereto against the state. B. Every

person incurring, or ordering or voting for the incurrence of such obligations, and his bondsmen, shall

be jointly and severally liable therefor. Every payment made in violation of the provisions of this

chapter shall be deemed illegal, and every official authorizing or approving such payment, or taking

part therein, and every person receiving such payment, or any part thereof, shall be jointly and

severally liable to the state for the full amount so paid or received.” A.R.S. § 35-196 – “Any state

officer or employee who illegally withholds, expends or otherwise converts any state money to an

unauthorized purpose shall be liable, either individually or on his bond, for the amount of such money,

plus a penal sum of twenty per cent thereof, and an action may be instituted by the director of the

department of administration or the attorney general immediately upon the discovery thereof.” A.R.S.

§ 35-212 - “The attorney general, in his discretion, may bring an action in the name of the State to

enjoin (stop) the illegal payment of public monies, or if such monies have already been paid, to

recover such monies plus twenty percent of such amount together with interest and costs, including

reasonable attorney fees.” A.R.S. § 35-301 – “A public officer or other person, including justices of the

peace and constables, charged with the receipt, safekeeping, transfer or disbursement of public

money is guilty of a class 4 felony who: 1. Without authority of law, appropriates it, or any portion

thereof, to his own use, or to the use of another. 2. Knowingly loans it, or any portion thereof. 3.

Knowingly fails to keep it in his possession until disbursed or paid out by authority of law. 4. Without

authority of law knowingly deposits it, or any portion thereof, in a bank, or with a banker or other

person, except on special deposit for safekeeping. 5. Knowingly keeps a false account, or makes a

false entry or erasure in an account of, or relating to it. 6. Alters, falsifies, conceals, destroys or

obliterates such an account with an intent to defraud or deceive. 7. Knowingly refuses or omits to pay

over, on demand, public monies in his hands, upon presentation of a draft, order or warrant drawn

upon such monies by competent authority. 8. Knowingly omits or refuses to transfer the money when

a transfer is required by law. 9. Knowingly transfers the money when not authorized or directed by
law. 10. Knowingly omits or refuses to pay over to an officer or person authorized by law to receive it,

any money received by him when a duty is imposed by law to pay over the money.”

Arizona Constitution Article 9, Section 7 – “Public funds are to be expended only for public

purposes and cannot be used to foster or promote purely private or personal interests of any

individual.” This section also therefore prohibits the giving of gifts, loans, etc. to individuals. State

agencies are responsible for determining that the public benefit is substantially equivalent to or

greater than the cost. This documentation must be maintained for audit and record retention purposes

Recently, the Supreme Court expressed the opinion that matters or instances of
corruption must be strictly dealt with. It also stated that it is not necessary that
convicted public servants are awarded simple imprisonment and this could be
attributed to the fact the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 does not specify
this description. 

Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah were hearing a Special Leave Petition
against a decision of the Karnataka High Court.

They upheld the Special Court’s conviction of the petitioner under sections 7,
13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC, Act. They confirmed the order of simple
imprisonment for 6 months with a fine for the offense punishable under section
7. However, they reduced the quantum of the sentence to one and a half years
from two years, taking into consideration his old age. 

S.7 of the Act, dealing with ‘Offences related to Public Servant being bribed’,
stipulates that if such a public servant is found to be guilty, he or she shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which will not be less than 3 years and
may extend to 7 years, with the additional element of fine. 

As it stands today, section 13 of the act, condemns any public servant who
committed criminal misconduct to imprisonment for a term not less than 4
years, extending up to 10 years and subject said public servant to fine. 

In the current case, the petitioner had been working at the Secretary of Kavalaga
Village (Gram Panchayat). It was stated that the wife of the complainant was
selected under Ashraya Scheme for the sanction of construction of the house
and as such the Government had sanctioned a sum of INR 35, 000 to his wife.

The aforementioned amount was ordered to be paid out in forum installments

and accordingly, two installments had been paid out to him. 

At the time of disbursing the third installment, the petitioner demanded INR 500
to give a cheque in favor of the wife of the complainant. Reluctant of bribing the
complainant approached the police and lodged a complaint resulting in the
crime being registered against the petitioner for offenses punishable under
section 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. 

Upon the receipt of the complainant, the police sought to lay a trap and
prepared a Demonstration Panchanama. The petitioner was successfully caught
in the act and recorded.

After obtaining a sanction of prosecution from the competent authority, a

charge sheet was filed against the petitioner/ accused for the aforementioned
offenses.

After the trial reached completion, the Special Court arrived at the conclusion
that the petitioner was guilty and sentenced the accused to undergo simple
imprisonment for 6 months with a fine of INR 1000. 

Further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years with a fine of
Rs.2,000/- for the offense punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section
13(2) of P.C.Act with default clause and it was ordered that all the substantive
sentences shall run concurrently