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 Firm, represented by its sole shareholder, also a Respondent in this case, 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 Firm 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 Firm is a company incorporated in Brazil and active in the supply of certain goods to government agencies through public procurement processes in that country. The Respondent Firm 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 Firm and other parties for allegedly engaging in corrupt and fraudulent practices. The Respondent Firm was one of two companies that participated in the bidding process and was awarded public contracts in the context of the Procurement Process (the other company is also included as a Respondent in the case). The OII accused the Respondent Firm of engaging in a corrupt practice, through its sole shareholder, 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 Firm 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 Firm. In the Response to the Notice, the Respondent Firm refuted all charges brought by the OII. Following the issuance of the Notice and reviewing the Respondent Firm’s Response, the Sanctions Officer issued a Determination finding that it was more likely than not that the Respondent Firm had engaged in corrupt and fraudulent practices, and imposed sanctions on all three Respondents. The Sanctions Officer’s 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 Firm’s Response, the Sanctions Officer’s Determination, the Respondent Firm’s Appeal and the OII’s Reply), the Committee concluded that it was more likely than not that the Respondent Firm had engaged in corrupt and fraudulent practices. The Committee imposed a six (6) year-debarment period in which the Respondent Firm 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 the Respondent Firm’s management staff and the repeated pattern in the prohibited practices, as aggravating factors.