This is established by the recent STSJ CAT 9703/2024 ruling, which confirms the prohibition of contracting with the public sector (imposed by the Catalan Competition Authority) for a company sanctioned for participating in collusive practices in public tenders (concerted practices carried out by bidders to manipulate the bidding procedures). This ruling contains a particularly relevant statement on criminal Compliance.
The resolution systematically presents the negative value judgment issued by the court regarding various elements of the implemented Model, contrasting them with the technical requirements laid out in the main applicable norms and guidelines.
- Limitation of the Reporting Commitment to Very Serious and Early Violations
The judicial resolution emphasizes that the Model only provides for the reporting of very serious violations detected at early stages, highlighting that cooperation with authorities is contingent upon obtaining a sanctioning benefit. This design deviates from the preventive purpose of the system and reveals its utilitarian focus.
This limitation contradicts the logic of compliance as a culture of legality. The FGE Circular 1/2016 already warned that models should not be configured as insurance against criminal liability, but rather as instruments aimed at creating an organizational environment that respects the law.
In short, it is necessary to establish effective procedures for detecting and managing non-compliance, without limiting them to favorable scenarios for the company. From an ethical compliance standpoint, the selective reporting of behaviors weakens the credibility of the model structurally. - Absence of Commitment Signature by Senior Management
The court negatively assesses that the commitment to compliance has not been signed by the highest authorities of the entity, concluding that this shows a lack of genuine involvement.UNE-ISO 37301 clearly establishes that the governing body must demonstrate leadership, commitment, and responsibility with regard to the compliance system. This involvement must be specific, verifiable, and permanent.The support of senior management must be explicit and visible, which includes formalizing the commitment in writing. The absence of a signature on a modified version of the document, particularly regarding cooperation with authorities, is an unmistakable sign that the Model lacks anchoring at the core decision-making level of the organization. - Non-accredited and Unassessed Training
The ruling points out that effective attendance at training sessions is not proven, nor is there any mechanism for evaluating the benefit derived from the training. Additionally, the training was not directed at all groups exposed to risk. Training is not an isolated act but an essential part of the system and must be accompanied by mechanisms that allow for verifying its reception and impact. The need to design training programs proportional to the level of risk is emphasized, allowing for the demonstration that the knowledge has been integrated into the professional conduct of the recipient. Its absence turns training into a symbolic act, ineffective in preventing crime. - Compliance Body without Specialized Training or Independent Resources
The ruling also points out that the Compliance body lacks sufficient specialization in the area of the illegal act in question (competition law), and its functioning essentially depends on external consultancy.Compliance bodies must have specific competencies, experience, and adequate resources to perform their functions independently and effectively. Outsourcing certain functions may be acceptable, but it cannot replace the responsibilities of the body itself. The lack of internal specialization weakens the control system and reinforces the impression that the body is a nominal structure with no operational capacity.
Compliance bodies cannot merely serve as transmitters of external advice but must be genuine prevention agents, embedded in the organization’s control structure. - Failure to Expressly Acknowledge the Facts
The Court emphasizes that the company did not acknowledge its direct involvement in the events during the sanctioning procedure, reinforcing the defensive nature of the Model.Without requiring formal self-incrimination, the principles of transparency and active collaboration, as outlined in the Prosecutor’s Office Circular, demand a proactive attitude from the entity, especially when the compliance system is presented as a mitigating or exempting factor for liability. A truly effective model cannot be based on a narrative of denial or dissociation from the established facts, as this prevents taking responsibility and implementing real corrective actions.
In summary:
The combined analysis of all elements leads the Court to consider that the implemented Model is merely formal, adopted ex post with the sole purpose of lifting the sanction, without evidence of effective integration into the corporate structure.
A crime prevention model must be part of the culture, strategy, and operations of the organization. It cannot be limited to creating documents; its practical implementation, effectiveness, and continuous evolution must be demonstrated. The Prosecutor’s Office Circular is clear: models should not be designed to avoid sanction but to prevent the commission of the crime.
A program is not only evaluated by its existence but by its ability to transform behavior and reduce the risk of non-compliance.
Marta Molina
Head of Corporate Compliance
mmb@uhy-fay.com