Anticorruption and Integrity

Frequently Asked Questions

These are questions that consulting firms, consultants, journalists, academics, students, NGOs, and citizens most frequently ask the ADB Integrity Division about ADB’s anticorruption policy and its work in fighting fraud and corruption. If you have other questions, contact us!

How does ADB define corrupt and fraudulent practices?

Corrupt and fraudulent practices under ADB’s Anticorruption Policy are defined as follows:

• corrupt practice - the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting, directly or indirectly, anything of value to improperly influence the actions of another party (e.g. bribery, kickbacks, extortion, bid manipulation)



• fraudulent practice – any action, including misrepresentation, to obtain a financial or other benefit by deception (e.g. fraudulent claims like consultant timesheet, airfare, receipts/invoices; using lower rate personnel to perform work at higher rates; providing lower quality goods; false documents like curriculum vitae, bid security/bank guarantees, work certificates, financial statements, fictitious bids/”borrowing” names of firms; misrepresentation of educational background or full-time employment status)



• collusive practice - an arrangement between two or more parties designed to improperly influence the actions of another party (e.g. leaking of bid information, rigged specifications)



• coercive practice - impairing or harming, or threatening to impair or harm, directly or indirectly, any party or its property to improperly influence the actions of that party



• conflict of interest - a situation in which a party has interests that could improperly influence that party’s performance of its official duties or responsibilities, contractual obligations, or compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

These definitions are harmonized with those of other international financial institutions.

How does ADB protect whistleblowers?

A key part of whistleblower protection, as it relates to ADB's Anticorruption Policy, is ADB's firm position that the source of any allegation or evidence will be treated with utmost confidentiality. OAGI has reinforced that policy through its operating principles, which emphasize that OAGI will

• make its best effort to encourage and protect whistleblowers and other witnesses
• limit the circulation of any information regarding an investigation strictly to those with a need to know
• engage appropriate officials to identify actions that will prevent such retaliation from taking effect or otherwise causing harm to the individual or firm, where a witness may suffer or has suffered retaliation because of assistance in an investigation
• protect from unauthorized disclosure throughout and following an investigation the identity of an individual who makes a report in good faith to OAGI
• refer concerns of unauthorized disclosure by ADB staff of the identity of a witness related to OAGI's inquiries to ADB officials responsible for disciplinary procedures.

For more information, read whistleblower protection in ADB [ PDF ].

Can't someone be harmed by false allegations? What does ADB do about a person who deliberately files a false allegation? Will I be punished if I file a report that turns out not to be true?

An allegation alone is not sufficient for ADB to determine if there has been a violation of the Anticorruption Policy. Any allegation must be confirmed by an independent investigation by OAGI before it can be used as the basis for applying a sanction.

ADB's procedures allow it to impose a sanction on anyone who knowingly reports false, frivolous, or misleading information. OAGI will investigate to gather evidence that such reports were false or malicious before ADB can take such action.

No one will be punished for reporting concerns in good faith, even if they cannot be supported by additional evidence or ultimately are found to be incorrect. The key premise to making complaints is that they are believed to be accurate, or suspicious enough to cause concern.

Does OAGI investigate all complaints?

OAGI screens all complaints to assess whether the allegations are specific, credible, verifiable, and material. At the conclusion of the screening process, the OAGI will decide whether an investigation is warranted or the case should be closed at this stage. If a decision is made not to pursue the case further, OAGI documents the reasons for that decision, and retains the information in its database in case additional information is received later.

Does ADB investigate anonymous complaints?

Yes. ADB recognizes the sensitivity of these issues and encourages any concern of fraud or corruption related to ADB-financed activity to be reported, on an identified basis or anonymously. Anonymous allegations may be difficult for OAGI to investigate, however, unless there is some means for OAGI to seek clarification or additional information from the complainant. Free Internet-based e-mail systems have made this possible.

Does the Anticorruption Policy apply to ADB staff? What happens to allegations regarding staff?

Yes, the Anticorruption Policy applies to all ADB-financed activity, including its staff. OAGI investigates allegations related to ADB staff just as it would any other allegation; however, if OAGI concludes that staff may have violated the Anticorruption Policy, its findings are referred to ADB's Human Resources Division, which is responsible for disciplinary actions regarding ADB staff. OAGI may advise that department through the disciplinary process.

How does ADB provide due process to subjects of investigations?

ADB firmly supports the principles of providing due process and has incorporated them throughout its anticorruption procedures, even though it is solely an administrative process of ADB. OAGI's investigative standards require it to present its investigative findings to subjects of an investigation whenever possible. Subjects may prepare, in their own words, an explanation of the facts and circumstances, which will be presented to ADB's Integrity Oversight Committee, formerly Oversight Committee on Anticorruption to consider. (However, because this is an administrative process of ADB, procedures do not provide for personal appearances at Integrity Oversight Committee meetings.) The Integrity Oversight Committee has sole discretion to assess whether an alleged violation took place and if so, will determine the appropriate remedial action. ADB's Integrity Guidelines and Procedures provide entities on which ADB has imposed any sanction 90 days to appeal the decision and present new information to ADB's Sanction Appeal Committee, formerly Review Committee on Anticorruption.

In certain cases, the Intergrity Oversight Committee may refer matters for investigation to appropriate authorities of a concerned member government. This can only be done with concurrence of the President of ADB.

When ADB declares a firm ineligible to participate in ADB-financed activity, does that sanction apply to the firm's employees or associated firms?

A firm's ineligibility extends to all employees and officers of the firm. Ineligibility may extend to contractual employees or others with an association with the firm, depending on the specific relationship of that individual with the firm or the individual's involvement in the action that led to the sanction. This policy is to prevent attempts to circumvent the sanction. Those employees or others (as may be determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on the specific circumstances) may not participate in ADB-financed activity, either independently or through nomination by an eligible firm, unless they have completely disassociated themselves with the debarred firm.

When ADB imposes a sanction on a firm, it applies to a specific business entity, unless otherwise specified. Several times, ADB has declared ineligible only selected entities of corporate organizations. In such cases, associated firms of the corporate organization remain eligible to participate in ADB-financed activity.

Why doesn't ADB publicize the names of the firms and individuals it has debarred pursuant to the Anticorruption Policy?

Acknowledging there is some deterrent effect to publicizing its debarment list, ADB has concluded doing so will limit the Integrity Division's ability to fairly and consistently implement its responsibilities under the Anticorruption Policy. It would place ADB “above the law” in by publicly labeling parties with terms that have serious legal implications in a manner that some jurisdictions would classify as slander, but for which ADB has immunity. The process through which ADB imposes sanctions is an administrative process, not a legal or juridical assessment of fraudulent or corrupt practices. Parties with the greatest resources will present significant challenges to the administrative process, leading to inequality based on the resources a firm or individual may have. The list is not secret. ADB staff may access the list, and ADB shares the information with international organizations, and others with a need to know. Read more.

ADB's Anticorruption Policy is comparable to that of the World Bank. Did ADB develop it's policy in conjunction with the World Bank or independently?

It is not by coincidence that ADB's and the World Bank's Anticorruption Policies are similar. ADB was the forerunner in promoting good governance when it adopted a Governance Policy in 1995. However, in 1997 the Group of Seven industrial nations (G7) issued a statement that dealt with combating corruption and financial crimes, and urged the Intentional Monetary Fund and multilateral development banks to strengthen their activities in fighting corruption. The statement further encouraged multilateral development banks to establish uniform procurement standards to ensure strong oversight of all facets of the procurement process, citing provisions introduced by the World Bank in 1996 in its procurement documents.

ADB developed its Anticorruption Policy, approved in July 1998, independently of the World Bank. However, in view of the statements made by the G7, ADB formulated its policy with consideration of the standards incorporated into the World Bank's comparable policy.