Some States equally criminalize and penalize the offeror and the recipient of bribes or other illegal payments. In some States the offence and the penalty are different, depending on whether public officials are or are not involved. In other states such distinctions no lega consequences. Also, laws cover the role of intermediaries, e bene was provided to a public servant through a nominee or agent. Fraud An alternative way of dealing with corrupt payments, especially in transactions between the private and public sector, is through the crime of fraud (as is the case in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). When corrupt intentions cannot be proved easily of at all, it may still be possible to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the overpricing of a pro ject is due to the effort of a company to recuperate the cost of bribes. The same applies to cases of providing work of inferior quality than that specified in the contract, charging for goods or services never delivered, altering the specifications or the timing of completion etc. Other illicit payments Observers have often referred to speed money, amounts paid to officials in order to expedite a decision-making or other process. In such cases officials receive illicit benefits to do what they are supposed to do anyway. In certain cases, advantages are conferred or promised in order to cut the red tape Although some might rationalize this practice by thinking that it is valuable and in the best interests of their community such payments ate commonly outlawed. Another act worthy of consideration is the payment of money to politicians to influence not only their vote in parliament or committees of which they are members but also for asking particular questions or raising issues. In democratic societies, such practices may be regarded as undermining the principle of one person, one vote, and of equality and fairness- those who do not have the means to influence the politicaSome States equally criminalize and penalize the offeror and the recipient of bribes or other illegal payments. In some States the offence and the penalty are different, depending on whether public officials are or are not involved. In other States, such distinctions have no legal consequences. Also, laws cover the role of intermediaries, if the benefit was provided to a public servant through a nominee or agent. Fraud An alternative way of dealing with corrupt payments, especially in transactions between the private and public sector, is through the crime of fraud (as is the case in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). When corrupt intentions cannot be proved easily or at all, it may still be possible to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the overpricing of a project is due to the effort of a company to recuperate the cost of bribes. The same applies to cases of providing work of inferior quality than that specified in the contract, charging for goods or services never delivered, altering the specifications or the timing of completion etc. Other illicit payments Observers have often referred to "speed money", amounts paid to officials in order to expedite a decision-making or other process. In such cases, officials receive illicit benefits to do what they are supposed to do anyway. In certain cases, advantages are conferred or promised in order to cut the red tape. Although some might rationalize this practice by thinking that it is valuable and in the best interests of their community, such payments ate commonly outlawed. Another act worthy of consideration is the payment of money to politicians to influence not only their vote in parliament or committees of which they are members, but also for asking particular questions or raising issues. In democratic societies, such practices may be regarded as undermining the principle of one person, one vote, and of equality and fairness - those who do not have the means to influence the political