1 / 19

MONEY , FRAUD AND THE POLITICIA N - CASE STUDY -

This case study examines a project involving the rehabilitation of road bridges affected by floods, which was marred by fraudulent activities involving a politician, authority, constructor, and subcontractors. The project received financing through the PHARE 2005 program. The fraudulent stages of project implementation, including the manipulation of financing approval and the illegal rejection of offers, are detailed. The impact of the fraud on funds and the overall objective of the project is also discussed.

olar
Download Presentation

MONEY , FRAUD AND THE POLITICIA N - CASE STUDY -

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MONEY, FRAUD AND THE POLITICIAN • - CASE STUDY-

  2. A. PROJECT –infrastructure objective B. ACTORS– persons or entities involved C.FRAUD –abusivebehavours D. MONEY – funds affected byfraud

  3. A. PROJECT Rehabilitation works to 2road bridges affected by the floods from the period April – August 2005 Projectfinanced by the Programme PHARE 2005 CES, sub-component „Measures against the disasters caused by the floods”

  4. B. ACTORS 1. POLITICIAN – president of the party county organisation, member in the party central management; 2. AUTHORITY – county council led by the politician; 3. CONSTRUCTOR –politician’s friend; 4. SUBCONTRACTOR 1 –politician’s son-in-law; 5. SUBCONTRACTOR 2–politician’s relative.

  5. 1. POLITICIAN - President of the county council - Contractor’s friend - Subcontractor A’s father- in-law - Subcontractor B’s relative 2. CONTRACTING AUTHORITY County Council Offers’ evaluation commission Project implementation team 3. CONSTRUCTOR 4. SUBCONTRACTOR A 5. SUBCONTRACTOR B

  6. C. FRAUD STAGES OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION STAGE I–OBTAINMENT OF THE FINANCING APPROVAL Stage 1 – Submitting the projects Stage 2 – Evaluation of the projects and concluding the contract /financing agreement STAGE II–IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT Stage 1 – Award of the works, supply or services contracts Stage 2 – Accomplishment of the project’s objectives Stage 3 – Finalisation of the project – quantifying the indicators STAGE III– POST-IMPLEMENTATION ASSESSMENT

  7. FRAUD STAGE I – OBTAINMENT OF THE FINANCING APPROVAL Eligibility condition: The objectives of road infrastructure affected by the floods produced between April – August 2005 Report of direct causality between the floods and the need for financing The financing request: false statements regarding affecting one of the bridges by the floods between April – August 2005

  8. DLAF INVESTIGATIONS 1. There were no documents regarding the damage to the bridge following the floods produced starting with April 2005 2. There were identified documents regarding the damage to the resistance structure of the bridge, drawn up in the year 2004 3. Starting with August 2004 the road traffic was restricted 4. On 07 March 2005 the road and pedestrian traffic were completely forbidden

  9. STAGE II – IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT Stage 1 Organisation and carrying out of the award procedure of the works contract - Submitting the offers by 9 tenderers and requesting clarifications - Evaluation of the offers and drawing up the evaluation report by which there was established the successful offer of the tender (other than the offer of the CONTRACTOR)

  10. - The illegal and unjustified refusal of the manager of the contracting authority (POLITICIAN) of approving the evaluation report (2ndApril) - The illegal order of establishing a commission for the purpose of verifying the successful tenderer (3rd April) - Verifications made by infringing the material and territorial competence

  11. - Drawing up a second evaluation report containing false statements regarding imposing a minimum term of accomplishment of works of 3 months and maximum 6months - Rejecting the offer declared successful on the grounds that the term tendered of 2 and 28 days cannot be assimilated to the minimum term of 3 months - Accepting the offer of theCONTRACTOR, with a value bigger with approximately 1.000.000 EUR

  12. - Cancellation of the second evaluation report by the National Council for Solving Appeals (CNSC) - CNSC cancelled the reasons for rejecting the offers by invoking a minimum termfor the execution of works of 3months as this was not mentioned in the award documentation - Repeating the process of evaluation of the offers, without taking into account the decision of CNSC

  13. - Drawing up a third evaluation report by infringing the decision of CNSC – grounds for absolute nullity of the works contract - In the third report the successful offer was rejected again on the grounds that it tendered an execution term of 2 months and 28 days, but there was admitted for evaluation an offer in which the execution term was only 2 months The works contract was concluded with the CONTRACTOR which had an offer with a value approximately 1.000.000 EUR bigger than the one illegally rejected

  14. - The execution term was entirely neglected after the CONTRACTOR (POLITICIAN’s friend) obtained the contract (the works took longer than 12 months) - The initial value of the contract was increased by approximately 1.100.000 EUR, by falsifying the documents regarding the negotiation procedure and those regarding the execution of the „supplementary” works

  15. D.MONEY 1. Illegal obtainment of PHARE funds = around900.000 EUR (falsely stating that the bridges were affected by floods) 2. Prejudicing the budget of the county = around1.000.000 EUR (illegal rejection of a conformable offer) • 3. Prejudicing the budget of the county • = around1.100.000 EUR • (unjustified increase of the contract value)

  16. DLAF notified the prosecutors, who continued the investigations and proved the following: THE CONTRACTORgave up part of the works and then made payments to the two subcontractors close to the POLITICIAN – son-in-law and a relative THE CONTRACTORtransferred to the POLITICIAN a commercial space of 300 sm in the amount of around 100.000 EUR The prosecutors disposed sending to trial 11 persons THE POLITICIAN was sentenced to 8 years of prison

  17. Constantin LICA Counsellor Control Directorate constantin.lica@antifrauda.gov.ro FightagainstFraudDepartment - DLAF

More Related