The general impression left by the media, NGO or government campaigns and many other methods of disseminating information about the fight against corruption is that of a long-standing (or rather, long-standing) phenomenon, which has only been recognised as a problem in contemporary times. Nothing could be further from the truth. Like most notions in the humanities, corruption was known to the ancients, and we are merely refining their concepts. In the case of the present short text, corruption and the fight against corruption were no secret in ancient Athens.
We will start by saying that just as in our times, in ancient Greek there were a number of words that distinguished between the notions of "gift" and "bribe". Of them all, the most significant remains "diaphtheirein". It had two meanings, which may or may not go together, depending on the context. Thus 'diaphtheirein' means 'gift, present', but also a corruption of an individual's mind resulting in the latter's inability to make correct judgements. At the same time, Demosthenes and Plato refer to another word: "adiaphthorõs": the quality of a person to keep his independence, not to accept bribes and to remain incorruptible. Thus, there are quite a few authors (e.g. David Harvey, Mark Philp, Bratsis) who believe that the Greeks regarded bribe-taking (a form of corruption) as a curtailment of an individual's intellectual and volitional capacity to maintain his independence. It is important to note at this point that bribery and graft were not the only forms of corruption present in the ancient Greek consciousness, but were accompanied by electoral corruption, embezzlement and influence peddling.
At the same time, it should be pointed out that for the ancient Athenians, the act of a public official receiving gifts ('dõra') in connection with his public duties was not criminalised unless it harmed public interests. The practice of giving gifts to public officials or orators ('dõrodokia') was relatively accepted as long as it did not adversely affect the interests of the polis. Hyperides says at one point that 'it is not whether someone took money or not that is the problem, but whether he took it from the wrong sources'. Basically, the damage becomes the condition for incriminating the act and the damage must be proved.
Another very important fact should be mentioned, which underlines how evolved the concept of corruption was. Thus, Hyperides also says that the act of a private person taking a bribe is not nearly as serious as the act of a general or speaker taking a bribe. Basically, the essence of the difference in meaning between 'dõrodokia' and 'diaphtheirein' is revealed in this phrase. If damage is done to the interests of the state, then the act will be considered 'diaphtheirein'.
Demosthenes speaks of a law that criminalizes the damage done to the interests of the state through corruption, and the punishment provided for there was the confiscation of all assets of the offender and his children. Of course, depending on the context, this could go as far as a death sentence for the perpetrator.