Project Name
Country
Prohibited Practice(s)
Fraudulent Practice
Nationality
Year
Type
Duration
Corruption: The Sanctions Committee (the “Committee”) found that the preponderance of evidence indicated that the Respondent paid a bribe or gave something of value to an official of the executing agency in charge of a procurement process within the Tourism Development Program of Sergipe (the “Program”) to influence the outcome of that process and the execution of resulting public contracts.
Fraud: The Committee found that the preponderance of evidence indicated that the Respondent, through two companies also included as Respondents in this proceeding, supplied goods that did not conform to the technical specifications indicated in the contracts resulting from the procurement process, and omitted these non-conformities in invoices and other official documents relating to those transactions.
The Respondent is a Brazilian businessperson and shareholder of companies active in the supply of certain goods to government agencies through public procurement processes in Brazil. The Respondent is the sole shareholder of a company that participated and was awarded contracts in a procurement process related to the Program (the “Procurement Process”).
The Office of Institutional Integrity (the “OII”) submitted a Statement of Charges and Evidence against the Respondent and other parties for allegedly engaging in corrupt and fraudulent practices. The OII submitted that the Respondent was the de facto controller of a second company that participated and was awarded contracts in the context of the Procurement Process. Both companies were included as Respondents in the investigation of the OII. The OII accused the Respondent of engaging in a corrupt practice, consisting of the bribing of a public official from the executing agency to influence the outcome of the Procurement Process and the resulting public contracts. It also alleged that the Respondent was involved in fraudulent practices, consisting of the delivery of non-conforming goods and concealment of this fact in invoices and other official documents relating to the transactions in question.
Consequently, and in accordance with the Sanctions Procedures, the Sanctions Officer issued a Notice of Administrative Action (the “Notice”) to the Respondent. In the Response to the Notice, the Respondent refuted all charges brought by the OII. Following the issuance of the Notice and reviewing the Respondent’s Response, the Sanctions Officer issued a Determination finding that it was more likely than not that the Respondent had engaged in corrupt and fraudulent practices, and imposed sanctions on all three Respondents. The Sanctions Officer’s determination provided also for the extension of sanctions to certain companies and individuals based on Section 8.3 of the Sanctions Procedures.
In accordance with the Sanctions Procedures, the Respondents appealed the Sanction Officer’s Determination before the Sanctions Committee, contesting the underlying charges as well as the level and extension of the sanctions imposed.
Following a de novo review of the record (including the Statement of Charges, the Notice, the Respondent’s Response, the Sanctions Officer’s Determination, the Respondent’s Appeal and the OII’s Reply), the Committee concluded that it was more likely than not that the Respondent had engaged in corrupt and fraudulent practices. The Committee imposed a six (6) year-debarment period in which the Respondent will be ineligible to participate in or be awarded contracts for projects or activities financed by the IDB Group. The Committee considered the involvement of public officials, the participation of management staff and the repeated pattern in the prohibited practices, as aggravating factors.