Angola - Global bribery offenses guide

What is the legal framework governing bribery in your jurisdiction?

Bribery in Angola is governed by the Criminal Code (Law No. 38/20 of November 11, as amended by Law No. 12/24, of July 4), and the following legal instruments:

• Law No. 5/20 of January 27, on the prevention and combating of money laundering, terrorism financing, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (amended by Law No. 11/24 of July 4). (AML Act);
• Law No. 13/15, of June 19, as amended by Law No. 10/24, of July 3 (Law on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters – MLA Act);
• The General Tax Code (Law No. 21/14, October 22, as amended by Law No. 21/20, July 9, and Presidential Legislative Decree No. 3/22). (GTC);
• Presidential Decree No. 169/24 of July 19 — the National Strategy for the Prevention and Repression of Corruption (NSPRC 2024-2027);
• the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC);
• African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption (AUCPCC).

 

What constitutes a bribe?

A bribe is any undue advantage, whether monetary or otherwise, that is offered, promised, given, requested, or accepted with the intent to influence the actions or decisions of a public official or other person in breach of their duties. This definition applies regardless of whether the public official's actions constitute a criminal offense under Articles 358–360 of the Criminal Code, Articles 15–16 of the UNCAC, or Article 4 of the AUCPCC. It falls under the concepts of corruption, embezzlement, and influence peddling, which we will clarify further in the next sections.

 

What are the principal offenses under this legal framework?

• Unlawful acceptance of advantage (Article 357 of the Criminal Code)
• Active and passive bribery (Articles 358 - 360 and 459 - 460 of the Criminal Code)
• Embezzlement of public funds (Article 362 of the Criminal Code)
• Influence peddling (Article 365 of the Criminal Code)
• Illicit enrichment (Article 20 of the UNCAC; Article 4 of the AUCPCC)
• Bribery in the private sector (Article 4 of the AUCPCC)
• Bribery within international trade (Article 461 of the Criminal Code)

 

What is the jurisdictional reach of the legal framework?

According to Article 4 of Criminal Code, together with the article 2 of AML Act, article 9 of the GTC and articles 1 and 2 of the MLA act, Angolan law applies to:

Offences committed within national territory; Offences committed on board Angolan ships or aircraft, even when outside national territory; Offences committed abroad by Angolan nationals, provided that the act is punishable in both Angola and the country in which it occurred; Offences committed abroad against Angolan nationals when extradition is not granted; Offences committed outside of Angola under international treaties or conventions to which Angola is a party.

Territorial and Personal jurisdiction is extended in the case of offences committed abroad by foreign nationals when the Offence affects Angolan interests and extradition is not granted; Offences committed by or against Angolan public officials abroad; Offences committed by Angolan nationals abroad, even if not punishable in the foreign jurisdiction, when the act is considered serious under Angolan law.

 

Who may be liable for bribery? (public officials, private individuals, legal entities etc.)

Angola’s legal framework for combating bribery is shaped by both domestic legislation and international commitments, particularly the AUCPCC and the UNCAC. The following actors may be held liable:

• Public Officials: are criminally liable under Criminal Code, AML Act (addresses corruption linked to money laundering and terrorism financing), AUCPCC (obligates Angola to criminalize bribery involving public officials, including solicitation, acceptance, and diversion of public assets).
• Private Individuals: may be prosecuted for offering or promising undue advantages to public officials, accepting bribes in the private sector, engaging in illicit enrichment (as defined in the Articles 459 and 460 of the Criminal Code and in the Article 1 of the AUCPCC).
• Legal Entities: corporate liability is recognized under the AML Act (entities are liable for acts committed by representatives in their interest – Article 2), GTC – which includes anti-abuse provisions for tax-related bribery (Article 147), AUCPCC (Article 4 (e) – extends liability to private sector actors who offer or accept undue advantages).
• Foreign Officials and Entities: Angola’s jurisdiction extends to foreign actors under MLA Act, UNCAC (Article 16) and AUCPCC (Article 4(f) – criminalize bribery of foreign public officials and influence-peddling across borders).

 

Can a parent company be liable for its subsidiary’s involvement in bribery?

Yes, under specific legal and factual circumstances, a parent company may be held liable for bribery committed by its subsidiary under Angolan law. This is particularly true when:

• Effective control or ratification exists: Liability arises when the parent company has knowledge of, ratifies, or exercises control over the subsidiary's bribery-related conduct. This includes situations where the parent company directly or indirectly influences the subsidiary’s operations or decisions that lead to the corrupt act.
• Failure to implement adequate compliance measures: According to Article 56-A of AML Act, legal entities are required to adopt internal control mechanisms, risk management systems, and compliance programs to prevent money laundering and corruption. A parent company may be liable if it fails to ensure that its subsidiary complies with these obligations, especially when the subsidiary operates in high-risk sectors or jurisdictions.
• Collective Interest or Benefit: If the bribery was committed in the interest of the parent company or if the parent company benefited from the corrupt transaction, the parent company may be held liable. This is reinforced by Article 147 of the GTC which addresses tax-related abuses and fraudulent schemes involving corporate structures.
• Lack of Legal Personality of Subsidiary: If the subsidiary does not have separate legal personality, the parent company may be directly liable for its actions. This is particularly relevant in cases involving foreign subsidiaries operating under the umbrella of an Angolan parent company.

 

Are facilitation payments (i.e. small payments to speed up routine governmental action) considered bribes?

Under Angolan law and international obligations, facilitation payments, commonly understood as small payments made to expedite routine governmental actions, are considered as bribes. These payments are prosecutable Offences and may result in criminal liability for both the giver and the recipient, regardless of the payment’s size or purpose.

The law criminalizes any undue advantage offered, promised, solicited, or accepted by public officials, regardless of the value or purpose. This includes facilitation payments, even if they are intended to speed up lawful administrative procedures. The law focuses on the intent behind the payment and its effect on the integrity of public service (Article 358 et seq. of the Criminal Code).

Under the provisions of Article 15 of the UNCAC, Angola, as a State Party to the UNCAC, is bound to criminalize the bribery of national public officials by offering, promising, or giving any undue advantage to induce or reward improper performance. The UNCAC does not recognize facilitation payments as legitimate or exempt from criminal liability.

 

Does the legal framework restrict political and charitable contributions?

Although contributions (whether political or charitable) are not explicitly prohibited under Angola’s legal framework on bribery, they may be investigated and penalized if used as vehicles for bribery, undue influence, or illicit enrichment.

For instance, Articles 10-A and Article 45-A of the AML Act require enhanced due diligence and reporting obligations for non-financial entities, including those involved in organizing or managing contributions for companies or legal persons. These provisions aim to prevent the misuse of donations — including political and charitable contributions — for money laundering or corruption schemes.

Similarly, the Article 20 of the UNCAC defines illicit enrichment as a significant increase in the assets of a public official that cannot be reasonably explained by lawful income. Political or charitable contributions may be scrutinized if they result in unexplained wealth or are used to conceal corrupt payments.

While the Criminal Code does not explicitly criminalize political or charitable donations, it penalizes any undue advantage given or received to influence public officials or breach their duties. Therefore, contributions made with the intent to influence decisions or gain favour may be classified as active corruption.

 

Does the legal framework place restrictions on corporate hospitality?

Yes. Hospitality may be considered a bribe if it exceeds reasonable limits or is intended to influence official action (Articles 358–360 Criminal Code; Article 15 UNCAC).

While corporate hospitality is not categorically prohibited, it is subject to legal scrutiny and may be considered a bribe if it exceeds reasonable limits or is intended to influence official action.

Regarding the definition of active and passive corruption in the Criminal Code which broadly includes any undue advantage, whether monetary or non-monetary, also the definition in the Article 15 of the UNCAC, hospitality (such as meals, travel, entertainment, or gifts) may qualify as an undue advantage if it is offered or accepted with intent to influence a public official’s conduct, if it is disproportionate or not socially adequate, or even if it is linked to a specific decision, contract, or regulatory action.

 

Are there any defenses for bribery offenses?

There are no statutory exemptions for bribery. However, general criminal defenses such as lack of intent, coercion, or error of fact may apply (Articles 20–22 Criminal Code).

No statutory exemptions exist for bribery under Angolan law. However, general criminal defenses may apply as mitigating circumstances for the offence of bribery. Articles 20 – 22 of the Criminal Code provide for general defenses applicable to all criminal offences, including bribery, such as: lack of intent (if the accused did not act with the requisite criminal intent (mens rea), liability may be diminished or eventually excluded), coercion or duress (if the act was committed under unlawful pressure or threat, it may be excused), error of fact (a genuine mistake regarding a material fact may mitigate criminal responsibility), mental incapacity or diminished responsibility (may be invoked where the accused lacked capacity to understand or control their actions).

Other special exempting circumstances that may reduce or eliminate liability are provided in Article 358 (No. 6 and 7) and 359 (No. 2, 6 and 7) of the Criminal Code, and they might apply if the advantage is not taken and the act does not breach official duties, penalties may be reduced, when the perpetrator voluntary withdrawal of the offer or promise before the act is committed, or when he, acting under solicitation, reports the crime within 90 days, or assists in identifying other offenders. Similar provisions apply to public officials who report the Offence early or contribute to investigations. 

From a Corporate perspective, legal entities may avoid liability if they demonstrate that the act was not committed on their behalf or in their interest; the perpetrator acted against express instructions or that there was no breach of due diligence or control duties by leadership.

 

What are the key regulatory or enforcement bodies with regard to bribery?

• Attorney General’s Office (PGR):
• National Asset Recovery Service (SENRA)
• National Office on Criminal Investigation and Combating Corruption (DNIAP & DNPCC)
• Criminal Investigation Service (SIC)
• Financial Intelligence Unit (UIF)
• General Tax Authority (AGT)

 

What are the legal consequences of being found guilty of bribery offenses?

Bribery offences under Angola’s Criminal Code and AML Act carry criminal, administrative, and civil penalties, depending on the nature and severity of the offence.

General Penalties goes from imprisonment, fines; confiscation of assets (including seizure, freezing, and forfeiture of proceeds of corruption), disqualification from public office (applicable to public officials convicted of corruption), dissolution or suspension of legal entities (in cases involving corporate liability or systemic corruption).

Specific offences and penalties:

• Unlawful Acceptance of Advantage (Article 357)
  • Public employee: Imprisonment from 1 to 5 years.
  • Giver of the advantage: imprisonment from 6 months to 3 years or a fine from 60 to 360 days.
• Passive Corruption (Article 359):
  • Public employee: up to 2 years imprisonment or a fine up to 240 days.
  • If the act or omission is not against duties: up to 3 years imprisonment or a fine up to 360 days. Penalty might go up to 16 years for aggravated corruption involving magistrates or arbitrators (Article 360 (4)
• Active Corruption (Article 358):
  • Perpetrator: up to 2 years imprisonment or a fine up to 240 days.
  • If the act or omission is against duties: Up to 3 years imprisonment or a fine up to 360 days.
• Illegal Business Participation (Article 364):
  • Public employee: imprisonment up to 5 years.
  • If the offence harms state property interests: 2 to 7 years imprisonment.
• Influence Peddling (Article 366):
  • Perpetrator: imprisonment from 1 to 5 years.
• Corruption in International Trade (Article 461):
  • Public employee: imprisonment from 1 to 5 years.
  • If involving criminal organizations or international scope: up to 8 years imprisonment.

 

Are deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) or other similar settlement mechanisms available?

Angolan law does not currently provide for DPAs. However, cooperation with the authorities and the voluntary recovery of assets may be considered when sentencing (Article 391 of the Criminal Code and Article 56-A of AML Act).

Article 391 of the Criminal Code allows for the mitigation of penalties when the accused cooperates with law enforcement by disclosing relevant facts, identifying co-perpetrators, or assisting in the recovery of illicit assets. Similarly, Article 56-A of the AML Act encourages the voluntary disclosure and repatriation of assets. Cooperating with authorities in identifying and recovering the proceeds of corruption may result in reduced penalties or leniency in enforcement. Although, it might not be understood as a DPA or any type of formal settlement agreement.

---

Summary provided by ADCA – Sociedade de Advogados, RL, a member of DLA Piper Africa, a Swiss Verein whose members are comprised of independent law firms in Africa working with DLA Piper.