Corruption Offences in Public Procurement 2026

Definition: Corruption offences in the sense of public procurement law are specific criminal offences – in particular bribery, taking bribes, granting and accepting advantages, and bribery in commercial transactions – whose final conviction acts as a mandatory ground for exclusion in the procurement procedure.

Last updated: January 2026 · Legal basis: §§ 299, 331–335 StGB; § 123 GWB; Art. 57 (1) Directive 2014/24/EU; § 20 BVergG 2018

---

Relevant criminal offences

German criminal law recognises several corruption offences that are relevant to public procurement as mandatory grounds for exclusion under § 123 GWB.

Public-official corruption (§§ 331–335 StGB)

• § 331 StGB – Acceptance of an advantage: A public official demands or accepts an advantage for himself or a third party in connection with his office (even without a specific unlawful agreement).
• § 332 StGB – Taking bribes: A public official accepts a bribe in return for a breach of official duty.
• § 333 StGB – Granting of an advantage: Bidders or third parties grant an advantage to a public official.
• § 334 StGB – Bribery: Bidders or third parties bribe a public official to commit a breach of official duty.
• § 335 StGB – Particularly serious cases: Aggravated sentencing rules.

Bribery in commercial transactions (§ 299 StGB)

§ 299 StGB covers corruption in the private sector; it is relevant in public procurement where decision-makers at non-public contracting authorities or in private-sector procurement are bribed. Since the reform in 2015, § 299 StGB also covers distortions of competition without a direct intent of preferential treatment.

Other relevant offences

• § 298 StGB – Anti-competitive agreements in tendering procedures: It is a criminal offence to submit a bid based on an unlawful agreement (bid rigging) in a tendering procedure.
• § 263 StGB – Fraud: Obtaining the contract award by deception about eligibility or price calculation.
• § 266 StGB – Breach of trust: Damaging the contracting authority through unlawful procurement conduct.

Consequences in procurement law: mandatory exclusion

§ 123 (1) GWB stipulates the mandatory exclusion of undertakings where there is a final conviction for the corruption offences listed. Exclusion generally applies for five years from the date the conviction becomes final (§ 126 GWB), unless self-cleaning is demonstrated.

Exclusion concerns not only the directly convicted natural persons, but also the undertaking itself, where the conviction relates to a person in a leading position (managing director, board member, authorised representative).

Proof of non-conviction

Contracting authorities may require bidders to demonstrate that no conviction for corruption offences exists. In Germany, this is usually done through:

• Self-declaration of the bidder
• Certificate of good conduct of leading persons (§ 30 BZRG)
• Extract from the Central Trade Register (§ 150a GewO)
• European Single Procurement Document (ESPD)

Self-cleaning in corruption offences

Undertakings convicted of corruption offences can avert the consequences of exclusion through self-cleaning measures, where they demonstrate to the contracting authority that they have drawn the appropriate consequences from the misconduct. Self-cleaning under § 125 GWB requires:

1. Compensation for damage or serious efforts to make compensation
2. Active cooperation with the investigating authorities
3. Concrete technical, organisational and personnel measures (compliance management system, training, dismissal of responsible persons)

FAQ

From when does a conviction become relevant under § 123 GWB? The conviction must be final; an ongoing investigation or a non-final conviction does not yet trigger mandatory exclusion, but may be considered an optional ground for exclusion.

What is the difference between § 298 StGB and § 299 StGB? § 298 StGB covers bid rigging in tendering procedures (horizontal distortion of competition); § 299 StGB covers the corruption of decision-makers (vertical bribery in commercial transactions).

Can an undertaking participate in tenders despite an ongoing investigation? An ongoing investigation does not establish a mandatory ground for exclusion; contracting authorities may, however, take it into account as a grave professional misconduct under § 124 (1) no. 3 GWB (optional ground for exclusion).

---

Last updated: January 2026 All information provided without guarantee. For legally binding advice, please consult a law firm specialising in public procurement law.