Abstract
The present paper addresses the conceptual difficulties surrounding the topic of corruption, as well as the causes of the phenomenon, aiming to understand the context in which the anticorruption laws, as a whole, are inserted and to make them more effective. It begins with critical analysis of the points of approximation between the Law of Administrative Improbity and the Anti-Corruption Law, both legal diplomas inserted in the greater context of corruption control in the country, as well as the possible inconsistencies between the said disciplines. While the Law of Improbity aims to curb public agents who practice conducts defined as misconduct, the Anti-Corruption Law turns to the administrative and civil objective responsibility of the legal entities that practice the conducts it prohibits. In both laws, however, co-authoring or participation of third parties, individuals or corporations, is allowed in the execution of the typified infractions. It is understood, therefore, that the cautious examination of the regimes of both laws with respect to the active subjects, prohibited conducts and penalties is needed to avoid the possibility of double responsibility. The goal is to avoid the bis in idem in the application of the laws in question. The theoretical research, of legal-dogmatic nature, resorted mainly of direct, primary and secondary data, aiming to contribute to the most appropriate interpretation and application of the collective interest purpose that is the control of the corruption.
Keywords:
control of corruption; Law of Improbity; Anti-corruption Law; active subjects; sanctions