SNC6

The Office of Institutional Integrity (“OII”) submitted a Statement of Charges and Evidence against a Respondent Firm (“Principal Respondent Firm”) for allegedly engaging in corrupt and collusive practices in connection with the Establishing Cadastral Registry and Strengthening Legal Certainty Protected Areas Program in Guatemala (the “Program”). OII identified that several firms (“Related Firms”) were under common ownership and shared the same board as the sanctioned Principal Respondent Firm. Also, OII identified a firm that was the Corporate Group of the Principal Respondent Firm (“Corporate Group Firm”). According to Section 8.3 of the Sanctions Procedures, OII requested to extend the sanction imposed to the Principal Respondent Firm to the Related Firms and to the Corporate Group Firm.

The Sanctions Officer (“SO”) determined that it is more likely than not that the Principal Respondent Firm engaged in corrupt and collusive practices. As a result, the SO imposed a sanction of debarment. Further, pursuant to Section 8.3 of the Sanctions Procedures, the SO extended this sanction to the Corporate Group Firm that controlled the Principal Respondent Firm, as well as to the Related Firms (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent Firms”).

Subsequently, the Principal Respondent Firm and the Respondent Firms appealed the SO’s Determinations before the Sanctions Committee (the “Committee”). In the Principal Respondent Firm’s Appeal to the Committee, the Principal Respondent Firm denied committing the prohibited practices and the Respondent Firms contested the extension of the sanction.

Following a de novo review of the written record, the Committee imposed a ten (10) year debarment period  in which the Principal Respondent Firm will be ineligible to participate or be awarded contracts for projects or activities financed by the Bank. In accordance with Section 8.3 of the Sanctions Procedures, the Committee also extended this sanction to the Respondent Firms. In deciding to include the Respondent Firms among the sanctioned parties, the Committee took into consideration  that (i) the Corporate Group Firm controlled the sanctioned Principal Respondent Firm, and that (ii) the Related Firms were under common ownership and shared the same Board of Directors as the Principal Respondent Firm.