SNC14

The Office of Institutional Integrity (“OII”) submitted a Statement of Charges and Evidence against an Individual Respondent (“Principal Respondent”) for allegedly engaging in a collusive practice related to the Barbados Competitiveness Program (the “Program”).  OII identified one firm (“Respondent Firm”) that was under control of the sanctioned Principal Respondent. According to the Section 8.3 of the Sanctions Procedures, OII requested to extend the sanction imposed to the Principal Respondent to the Respondent Firm.

The Sanctions Officer (“SO”) determined that it is more likely than not that the Principal Respondent engaged in a collusive practice. As a result, the SO imposed a debarment. Further, pursuant to Section 8.3 of the Sanctions Procedures, the SO extended this sanction to the Respondent Firm. 

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

Following a de novo review of the written record as well as oral statements, arguments and additional materials presented by the parties during the hearing, the Committee imposed a four (4) year-debarment period in which the Principal Respondent 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 Firm. In deciding to include the Respondent Firm among the sanctioned parties, the Committee considered the evidence in the Record and determined that the indicia of control is satisfied in the present case, as defined in Section 8.3 of the Sanctions Procedures. OII submitted sufficient evidence to determine that, based on the preponderance of the evidence,  the Respondent Firm  is a legal entity controlled, directly or indirectly, by a sanctioned Respondent. In this case, the evidence in the Record indicated that the sanctioned Principal Respondent holds the most senior position at the Respondent firm, is a founder of the business enterprise, actively provides the “tone from the top”, and has the power to direct the management of the business.