Fraudulent Practice: The Sanctions Committee found that the preponderance of evidence indicates that the Individual Respondent (the “Respondent”) falsified information to demonstrate that one bidding company met the financial requirements. It further found that the Respondent misrepresented technical information of another bidding company in an attempt to comply with the bidding specification. In these cases, the Respondent intended to obtain a financial benefit derived from the award of the contracts.
Corrupt Practice: The Sanctions Committee found that it was more likely than not that the Respondent solicited bribes from two bidding companies and facilitated bribes to public officials involved in adjudicating and awarding the bidding process in order to influence them improperly and secure the award of the contracts.
The Respondent, through firms, provided advisory and consulting services in infrastructure projects to companies that submitted bids in the context of the Program for the Innovation in School Infrastructure (the "Program").
The Office of Institutional Integrity (“OII”) submitted a Statement of Charges and Evidence against the Respondent and others, for allegedly engaging in corrupt and fraudulent practices related to the Program. OII’s specific allegations were that the Respondent, through companies, engaged in fraudulent practices by participating in submitting false information in the proposal related to the bidder’s financial and technical information to fulfill the requirements of the bidding documents and misleading the executing agency of the Program and the Bank to obtain a financial benefit. Further, OII presented allegations against the Respondent for engaging in corrupt practices by soliciting and/or facilitating improper payments from bidding companies to public officials who were involved in adjudicating and awarding the bidding process in order to obtain a benefit.
Consequently, and in accordance with the Sanctions Procedures, the Sanctions Officer (“SO”) issued a Notice of Administrative Action (“Notice”) to the Respondent. In the Response to the Notice, the Respondent denied the allegations presented by OII. Following the issuance of the Notice and reviewing the Respondent’s Response, the SO issued the Determination finding that the Respondent engaged in corrupt and fraudulent practices and imposed a debarment against the Respondent. In accordance with the Sanctions Procedures, the Respondent appealed the SO’s Determination before the Sanctions Committee (the “Committee”). The Respondent denied committing the prohibited practices.
Following a de novo review of the written record (including the Statement of Charges, the Notice, the Respondent’s Response, the SO’s Determination, the Respondent’s Appeal and OII’s Reply) as well as oral statements, arguments and additional materials presented by the parties during the hearing, the Sanctions Committee concluded that it was more likely than not that the Respondent engaged in fraudulent and corrupt practices. The Committee imposed a ten (10) year-debarment period in which the Respondent will be ineligible to participate or be awarded contracts for projects or activities financed by the Bank. The Committee took into consideration the following aggravating factors: (i) the central role of the Respondent through companies, (ii) the repeated pattern of conduct, (iii) the involvement of public officials, and (iv) the interference with OII’s investigation. The Committee did not consider mitigating factors.