Case Summaries

Date of Sanction Case Case Number Entity Type Entity Number Period
6 Nov 2014

Fraudulent practice
OAI investigated an allegation of fraud committed by Firm D and its former chairman in the procurement process of an ADB-financed project.

OAI established that Firm D submitted a fraudulent bank security/bank guarantee as part of its bid proposal for the bid.

During the investigation, OAI established that Firm D obstructed the investigation by submitting fabricated information that was critical to OAI’s investigation.

The IOC considered the obstruction as an aggravating circumstance and debarred Firm D for 4 years. The IOC debarred the former chairman for 2 years after considering that, while the former chairman took responsibility for the submission of the document, he did not have a direct role in the integrity violation.

14-012-1411 Individual 1 2 years
6 Nov 2014

Fraudulent practice
OAI investigated an allegation of fraud committed by Firm D and its former chairman in the procurement process of an ADB-financed project.

OAI established that Firm D submitted a fraudulent bank security/bank guarantee as part of its bid proposal for the bid.

During the investigation, OAI established that Firm D obstructed the investigation by submitting fabricated information that was critical to OAI’s investigation.

The IOC considered the obstruction as an aggravating circumstance and debarred Firm D for 4 years. The IOC debarred the former chairman for 2 years after considering that, while the former chairman took responsibility for the submission of the document, he did not have a direct role in the integrity violation.

14-012-1411 Firm 1 4 years
6 Nov 2014

Fraudulent practice
The IOC debarred three firms, Firm W, Firm X and Firm Y, and their respective proprietors for submitting false work completion certificates.

OAI found that a joint venture, represented by Firm W, submitted a false work certificate and that Firm W was responsible for the submission. Firm W failed to respond to any inquiries and refused to receive OAI’s notice of findings. The other firm in the joint venture provided reasonable grounds that it had not been aware of Firm W’s fraudulent practice.

OAI also found that another joint venture, consisting of Firms X and Y, submitted a false work certificate. Firm X denied submitting the false work certificate, but OAI did not find its denial credible in light of evidence demonstrating that Firm X was instrumental to the falsification of the certificate. Firm Y failed to respond to any of OAI's inquiries and notice of findings.

The IOC, pursuant to paragraph 68 of the Integrity Principles and Guidelines (2012), considered Firm B and its proprietor’s refusal to receive, and Firm Y and its proprietor’s failure to respond to OAI’s notice of findings as aggravating circumstances, resulting in an additional debarment period. Firms W and Y, and their respective proprietors were debarred for 4 years while Firm X and its proprietor were debarred for 3 years.

13-034-1411 Individual 1 3 years
6 Nov 2014

Fraudulent practice
The IOC debarred three firms, Firm W, Firm X and Firm Y, and their respective proprietors for submitting false work completion certificates.

OAI found that a joint venture, represented by Firm W, submitted a false work certificate and that Firm W was responsible for the submission. Firm W failed to respond to any inquiries and refused to receive OAI’s notice of findings. The other firm in the joint venture provided reasonable grounds that it had not been aware of Firm W’s fraudulent practice.

OAI also found that another joint venture, consisting of Firms X and Y, submitted a false work certificate. Firm X denied submitting the false work certificate, but OAI did not find its denial credible in light of evidence demonstrating that Firm X was instrumental to the falsification of the certificate. Firm Y failed to respond to any of OAI’s inquiries and notice of findings.

The IOC, pursuant to paragraph 68 of the Integrity Principles and Guidelines (2012), considered Firm B and its proprietor’s refusal to receive, and Firm Y and its proprietor’s failure to respond to OAI’s notice of findings as aggravating circumstances, resulting in an additional debarment period. Firms W and Y, and their respective proprietors were debarred for 4 years while Firm X and its proprietor were debarred for 3 years.

13-034-1411 Firm 1 3 years
6 Nov 2014

Fraudulent practice
The IOC debarred three firms, Firm W, Firm X and Firm Y, and their respective proprietors for submitting false work completion certificates.

OAI found that a joint venture, represented by Firm W, submitted a false work certificate and that Firm W was responsible for the submission. Firm W failed to respond to any inquiries and refused to receive OAI’s notice of findings. The other firm in the joint venture provided reasonable grounds that it had not been aware of Firm W’s fraudulent practice.

OAI also found that another joint venture, consisting of Firms X and Y, submitted a false work certificate. Firm X denied submitting the false work certificate, but OAI did not find its denial credible in light of evidence demonstrating that Firm X was instrumental to the falsification of the certificate. Firm Y failed to respond to any of OAI’s inquiries and notice of findings.

The IOC, pursuant to paragraph 68 of the Integrity Principles and Guidelines (2012), considered Firm B and its proprietor’s refusal to receive, and Firm Y and its proprietor’s failure to respond to OAI’s notice of findings as aggravating circumstances, resulting in an additional debarment period. Firms W and Y, and their respective proprietors were debarred for 4 years while Firm X and its proprietor were debarred for 3 years.

13-034-1411 Individual 2 4 years
6 Nov 2014

Fraudulent practice
The IOC debarred three firms, Firm W, Firm X and Firm Y, and their respective proprietors for submitting false work completion certificates.

OAI found that a joint venture, represented by Firm W, submitted a false work certificate and that Firm W was responsible for the submission. Firm W failed to respond to any inquiries and refused to receive OAI’s notice of findings. The other firm in the joint venture provided reasonable grounds that it had not been aware of Firm W’s fraudulent practice.

OAI also found that another joint venture, consisting of Firms X and Y, submitted a false work certificate. Firm X denied submitting the false work certificate, but OAI did not find its denial credible in light of evidence demonstrating that Firm X was instrumental to the falsification of the certificate. Firm Y failed to respond to any of OAI’s inquiries and notice of findings.

The IOC, pursuant to paragraph 68 of the Integrity Principles and Guidelines (2012), considered Firm B and its proprietor’s refusal to receive, and Firm Y and its proprietor’s failure to respond to OAI’s notice of findings as aggravating circumstances, resulting in an additional debarment period. Firms W and Y, and their respective proprietors were debarred for 4 years while Firm X and its proprietor were debarred for 3 years.

13-034-1411 Firm 2 4 years
6 Nov 2014

Collusive practice
OAI investigated three firms A, B and C, and the representatives for alleged collusion during the procurement process of an ADB-financed project.

OAI established that the bid proposals of the three firms, which were the only three submitted, were significantly similar and the firms and representatives were unable to provide a credible justification for these similarities. OAI also established that Firm A, the winning firm, had undisclosed familial and business relations with one of the other firms. It was therefore determined on a more probable than not basis that the three firms colluded in an arrangement to favor the winning bidder, Firm A. However, there was insufficient evidence that Firm C’s representative was involved in the collusion because he was no longer associated with Firm C at the time it submitted its bid.

The IOC agreed with OAI conclusion that Firms A, B, C and Firms A’s and B’s representatives engaged in a collusive practice in favor of Firm A.

The IOC debarred Firm A, its representative, and Firm C for 4 years for their roles in the collusion and their lack of cooperation during the investigation. Firm B and its two representatives were debarred for 3 years.

12-057-1411 Individual 1 4 years
6 Nov 2014

Collusive practice
OAI investigated three firms A, B and C, and the representatives for alleged collusion during the procurement process of an ADB-financed project.

OAI established that the bid proposals of the three firms, which were the only three submitted, were significantly similar and the firms and representatives were unable to provide a credible justification for these similarities. OAI also established that Firm A, the winning firm, had undisclosed familial and business relations with one of the other firms. It was therefore determined on a more probable than not basis that the three firms colluded in an arrangement to favor the winning bidder, Firm A. However, there was insufficient evidence that Firm C’s representative was involved in the collusion because he was no longer associated with Firm C at the time it submitted its bid.

The IOC agreed with OAI conclusion that Firms A, B, C and Firms A’s and B’s representatives engaged in a collusive practice in favor of Firm A.

The IOC debarred Firm A, its representative, and Firm C for 4 years for their roles in the collusion and their lack of cooperation during the investigation. Firm B and its two representatives were debarred for 3 years.

12-057-1411 Individual 2 3 years
6 Nov 2014

Collusive practice
OAI investigated three firms A, B and C, and the representatives for alleged collusion during the procurement process of an ADB-financed project.

OAI established that the bid proposals of the three firms, which were the only three submitted, were significantly similar and the firms and representatives were unable to provide a credible justification for these similarities. OAI also established that Firm A, the winning firm, had undisclosed familial and business relations with one of the other firms. It was therefore determined on a more probable than not basis that the three firms colluded in an arrangement to favor the winning bidder, Firm A. However, there was insufficient evidence that Firm C’s representative was involved in the collusion because he was no longer associated with Firm C at the time it submitted its bid.

The IOC agreed with OAI conclusion that Firms A, B, C and Firms A’s and B’s representatives engaged in a collusive practice in favor of Firm A.

The IOC debarred Firm A, its representative, and Firm C for 4 years for their roles in the collusion and their lack of cooperation during the investigation. Firm B and its two representatives were debarred for 3 years.

12-057-1411 Firm 1 3 years
6 Nov 2014

Collusive practice
OAI investigated three firms A, B and C, and the representatives for alleged collusion during the procurement process of an ADB-financed project.

OAI established that the bid proposals of the three firms, which were the only three submitted, were significantly similar and the firms and representatives were unable to provide a credible justification for these similarities. OAI also established that Firm A, the winning firm, had undisclosed familial and business relations with one of the other firms. It was therefore determined on a more probable than not basis that the three firms colluded in an arrangement to favor the winning bidder, Firm A. However, there was insufficient evidence that Firm C’s representative was involved in the collusion because he was no longer associated with Firm C at the time it submitted its bid.

The IOC agreed with OAI conclusion that Firms A, B, C and Firms A’s and B’s representatives engaged in a collusive practice in favor of Firm A.

The IOC debarred Firm A, its representative, and Firm C for 4 years for their roles in the collusion and their lack of cooperation during the investigation. Firm B and its two representatives were debarred for 3 years.

12-057-1411 Firm 2 4 years
2 Oct 2014

Fraudulent practices
OAI determined that a firm submitted translated project completion certificates, belonging to a different entity, to misrepresent the firm’s specific construction experience and satisfy the qualification requirements for the contract.

The IOC debarred the firm and the head of its overseas office for 2 years. The IOC considered their full admission and remedial actions taken against the firm’s employees as mitigating circumstances that warranted a reduction of 1 year from the base period of 3 years.

12-038-1410 Firm 1 2 years
2 Oct 2014

Fraudulent practices
OAI determined that a firm submitted translated project completion certificates, belonging to a different entity, to misrepresent the firm’s specific construction experience and satisfy the qualification requirements for the contract.

The IOC debarred the firm and the head of its overseas office for 2 years. The IOC considered their full admission and remedial actions taken against the firm’s employees as mitigating circumstances that warranted a reduction of 1 year from the base period of 3 years.

12-038-1410 Individual 1 2 years
2 Oct 2014

Fraudulent practices
OAI found that a joint venture consisting of Firm A and Firm B submitted a bid in which Firm A’s declared Average Annual Construction Turnover (AACTO) significantly inflated its actual AACTO. The misrepresentation of AACTO could be clearly attributed to Firm A’s declarations and, hence, did not involve Firm B.

The IOC debarred Firm A and its Chairman/General Director for 2 years for engaging in a fraudulent practice. The IOC considered the degree of cooperation shown during OAI investigation and the joint venture’s withdrawal from the bid as mitigating circumstances that warranted a reduction of 1 year from the base period of 3 years.

13-039-1410 Firm 1 2 years
2 Oct 2014

Fraudulent practices
OAI found that a joint venture consisting of Firm A and Firm B submitted a bid in which Firm A’s declared Average Annual Construction Turnover (AACTO) significantly inflated its actual AACTO. The misrepresentation of AACTO could be clearly attributed to Firm A’s declarations and, hence, did not involve Firm B.

The IOC debarred Firm A and its Chairman/General Director for 2 years for engaging in a fraudulent practice. The IOC considered the degree of cooperation shown during OAI investigation and the joint venture’s withdrawal from the bid as mitigating circumstances that warranted a reduction of 1 year from the base period of 3 years.

13-039-1410 Individual 1 2 years
2 Oct 2014

Fraudulent practices
An individual submitted a CV as part of a technical proposal for a consulting contract on a TA, claiming to have an MA in Civil Engineering from a "university" in the United Kingdom. The individual also made the same claim in their ADB CMS profile.

OAI confirmed that the "university" in question was not a bona fide academic institution, but rather, a "degree mill." As such, OAI found that the claimed qualification was bogus. The individual maintained that s/he had paid for the qualification, but acknowledged that the degree did not come from an accredited academic institution and promptly removed the claimed MA from their CMS profile.
The IOC debarred the individual for 1 year.

13-064-1410 Individual 1 1 year
2 Sep 2014 Fraudulent practices
OAI received an allegation that a bidder submitted a fraudulent work experience certificate in its bid for a construction contract financed under an ADB loan.  OAI confirmed that the experience certificate was fraudulent and the bidder admitted and confirmed that it was false. OAI sanctioned the firm and its director for 2 years, which took into account the firm's and individual's cooperation with OAI's inquiries.
14-047-1409 Firm 1 2 years
2 Sep 2014 Fraudulent practices
OAI received an allegation that a bidder submitted a fraudulent work experience certificate in its bid for a construction contract financed under an ADB loan.  OAI confirmed that the experience certificate was fraudulent and the bidder admitted and confirmed that it was false. OAI sanctioned the firm and its director for 2 years, which took into account the firm's and individual's cooperation with OAI's inquiries.
14-047-1409 Individual 1 2 years
31 Jul 2014 Fraudulent practices
In 2013, an ADB staff member forwarded concerns about falsified letters and certificates submitted by a bidder for a construction contract under an ADB project. The EA had spotted these documents, checked their authenticity with the relevant entities, and established that the documents were false.
OAI sought independent verification of the documents from the issuing entity, which confirmed that the documents were false. The firm did not respond to OAI’s queries or respond to OAI’s findings.
The IOC sanctioned the firm and the Director who signed the bid for a period of 3 years.
13-005-1407 Firm 1 3 years
31 Jul 2014 Fraudulent practices
In 2013, an ADB staff member forwarded concerns about falsified letters and certificates submitted by a bidder for a construction contract under an ADB project. The EA had spotted these documents, checked their authenticity with the relevant entities, and established that the documents were false.
OAI sought independent verification of the documents from the issuing entity, which confirmed that the documents were false. The firm did not respond to OAI’s queries or respond to OAI’s findings.
The IOC sanctioned the firm and the Director who signed the bid for a period of 3 years.
13-005-1407 Individual 1 3 years
31 Jul 2014 Fraudulent practices
In 2013, an ADB staff member forwarded concerns about falsified letters and certificates submitted by a bidder for a construction contract under an ADB project. The EA had spotted these documents, checked their authenticity with the relevant entities, and established that the documents were false.
OAI sought independent verification of the documents from the issuing entity, which confirmed that the documents were false. The firm did not respond to OAI’s queries or respond to OAI’s findings.
The IOC sanctioned the firm and the Director who signed the bid for a period of 3 years.
13-005-1407 Firm 1 3 years
31 Jul 2014 Fraudulent practices
In 2013, an ADB staff member forwarded concerns about falsified letters and certificates submitted by a bidder for a construction contract under an ADB project. The EA had spotted these documents, checked their authenticity with the relevant entities, and established that the documents were false.
OAI sought independent verification of the documents from the issuing entity, which confirmed that the documents were false. The firm did not respond to OAI’s queries or respond to OAI’s findings.
The IOC sanctioned the firm and the Director who signed the bid for a period of 3 years.
13-005-1407 Individual 1 3 years
5 Jul 2014

Fraudulent practices
OAI investigated and established that a firm and its General Manager engaged in fraudulent practices by submitting a false work certificate as part of the firm's bid. When OAI presented its findings to the firm and the individual, they agreed not to contest OAI's findings of fraudulent practices and accepted OAI's proposed sanction of 2 years.

Their acceptance of the two year debarment negated the need for an Integrity Oversight Committee consideration of sanctions (Integrity Principles and Guidelines, paras. 63-65).

12-025 Firm 1 2 years
5 Jul 2014

Fraudulent practices
OAI investigated and established that a firm and its General Manager engaged in fraudulent practices by submitting a false work certificate as part of the firm's bid. When OAI presented its findings to the firm and the individual, they agreed not to contest OAI's findings of fraudulent practices and accepted OAI's proposed sanction of 2 years.

Their acceptance of the two year debarment negated the need for an Integrity Oversight Committee consideration of sanctions (Integrity Principles and Guidelines, paras. 63-65).

12-025 Individual 1 2 years
5 Jul 2014

Fraudulent practices
OAI investigated and established that a firm and its General Manager engaged in fraudulent practices by submitting a false work certificate as part of the firm's bid. When OAI presented its findings to the firm and the individual, they agreed not to contest OAI's findings of fraudulent practices and accepted OAI’s proposed sanction of 2 years.

Their acceptance of the two year debarment negated the need for an Integrity Oversight Committee consideration of sanctions (Integrity Principles and Guidelines, paras. 63-65).

12-025-1407 Firm 1 2 years
5 Jul 2014

Fraudulent practices
OAI investigated and established that a firm and its General Manager engaged in fraudulent practices by submitting a false work certificate as part of the firm's bid. When OAI presented its findings to the firm and the individual, they agreed not to contest OAI’s findings of fraudulent practices and accepted OAI's proposed sanction of 2 years.

Their acceptance of the two year debarment negated the need for an Integrity Oversight Committee consideration of sanctions (Integrity Principles and Guidelines, paras. 63-65).

12-025-1407 Individual 1 2 years
5 Jul 2014

Fraudulent practices
OAI investigated and established that a firm and its General Manager engaged in fraudulent practices by submitting a false work certificate as part of the firm's bid. When OAI presented its findings to the firm and the individual, they agreed not to contest OAI’s findings of fraudulent practices and accepted OAI's proposed sanction of 2 years.

Their acceptance of the two year debarment negated the need for an Integrity Oversight Committee consideration of sanctions (Integrity Principles and Guidelines, paras. 63-65).

12-025-1407 Individual 1 2 years
30 Jun 2014

Fraudulent practice
An individual, who was working under a TA, committed fraudulent practices by fabricating e-mail communications with an ADB staff regarding technical specifications in a bidding document to give the impression that the comments originated from ADB. He also used a business card that contains an ADB logo when networking with IT vendors in his country.

ADB's policy on consultants' business card stipulates that "Consultants recruited under Technical Assistance (TA) or ADB-financed loan projects, or as Staff Consultants or Training Consultants, and all persons employed by or associated with the consultant, are not permitted to use any form of ADB logo on their business cards or stationery. A paragraph stipulating this policy has been introduced in the General Conditions of all consulting services contracts."

The individual is currently sanctioned for a different integrity violation.  As his actions resulted in a second debarment, his name was published in ADB's website, and may be subject to cross debarment by other MDBs.

The individual accepted OAI's proposed sanction of 3 years, which runs concurrently with his ongoing sanction, up to and including 30 June 2017.

13-020-1406 Individual 1 3 years
30 Jun 2014

Fraudulent practice
An individual, who was working under a TA, committed fraudulent practices by fabricating e-mail communications with an ADB staff regarding technical specifications in a bidding document to give the impression that the comments originated from ADB. He also used a business card that contains an ADB logo when networking with IT vendors in his country.

ADB's policy on consultant’s business card ADB's policy on consultants' business card stipulates that "Consultants recruited under Technical Assistance (TA) or ADB-financed loan projects, or as Staff Consultants or Training Consultants, and all persons employed by or associated with the consultant, are not permitted to use any form of ADB logo on their business cards or stationery. A paragraph stipulating this policy has been introduced in the General Conditions of all consulting services contracts."

The individual is currently sanctioned for a different integrity violation. As his actions resulted in a second debarment, his name was published in ADB’s website, and may be subject to cross debarment by other MDBs.

The individual accepted OAI's proposed sanction of 3 years, which runs concurrently with his ongoing sanction, up to and including 30 June 2017.

13-020-1406 Individual 1 3 years
7 Feb 2014

Collusive practice
An ADB project procurement-related review (PPRR), conducted in April 2012, found red flags and indications of possible collusive practice in two procurement processes conducted according to the shopping method.

On two occasions, a group of firms had submitted quotations for the supply of materials in a manner that was not in compliance with ADB’s Anticorruption Policy and Integrity Principles and Guidelines. In one procurement process, three out of the four firms that submitted quotations were associated with each other through ownership and management, while the fourth firm had a much higher bid price. In a second procurement process, two out of three firms were associated with each other, and the third firm was more likely than not non-existent.

The three firms and three individuals involved did not respond to any of OAI’s communications. The IOC sanctioned the three firms and three individuals for a period of 3 years for collusive practices.

12-068-1402 Firm 3 3 years
7 Feb 2014

Collusive practice
An ADB project procurement-related review (PPRR), conducted in April 2012, found red flags and indications of possible collusive practice in two procurement processes conducted according to the shopping method.

On two occasions, a group of firms had submitted quotations for the supply of materials in a manner that was not in compliance with ADB’s Anticorruption Policy and Integrity Principles and Guidelines. In one procurement process, three out of the four firms that submitted quotations were associated with each other through ownership and management, while the fourth firm had a much higher bid price. In a second procurement process, two out of three firms were associated with each other, and the third firm was more likely than not non-existent.

The three firms and three individuals involved did not respond to any of OAI’s communications. The IOC sanctioned the three firms and three individuals for a period of 3 years for collusive practices.

12-068-1402 Individual 3 3 years
7 Feb 2014 Fraudulent practice
During another ADB PPRR, OAI found indications of possible fraudulent practice in the procurement process for a contract to supply goods under national competitive bidding. The firm had submitted a manufacturer’s authorization letter, which, upon verification with the manufacturer, proved to be false.
The firm and two individuals involved did not respond to any of OAI’s communications. The IOC sanctioned the firm and two individuals for a period of 3 years for fraudulent practice.
12-082-1402 Firm 1 3 years
7 Feb 2014 Fraudulent practice
uring another ADB PPRR, OAI found indications of possible fraudulent practice in the procurement process for a contract to supply goods under national competitive bidding. The firm had submitted a manufacturer’s authorization letter, which, upon verification with the manufacturer, proved to be false.
The firm and two individuals involved did not respond to any of OAI’s communications. The IOC sanctioned the firm and two individuals for a period of 3 years for fraudulent practice.
12-082-1402 Individual 2 3 years
7 Feb 2014 Fraudulent practice
During another ADB PPRR, OAI found indications of possible fraudulent practice in the procurement process for a contract to supply goods under national competitive bidding. The firm had submitted a manufacturer’s authorization letter, which, upon verification with the manufacturer, proved to be false.
The firm and two individuals involved did not respond to any of OAI's communications. The IOC sanctioned the firm and two individuals for a period of 3 years for fraudulent practice.
12-082-1402 Firm 1 3 years
7 Feb 2014 Fraudulent practice
During another ADB PPRR, OAI found indications of possible fraudulent practice in the procurement process for a contract to supply goods under national competitive bidding. The firm had submitted a manufacturer’s authorization letter, which, upon verification with the manufacturer, proved to be false.
The firm and two individuals involved did not respond to any of OAI's communications. The IOC sanctioned the firm and two individuals for a period of 3 years for fraudulent practice.
12-082-1402 Individual 2 3 years
23 Jan 2014

Fraudulent and obstructive practices
A firm and its managing director engaged in fraudulent and obstructive practices related to its bid for a construction contract under an ADB-financed project.

The firm inflated the value of a previous contract it had been awarded and submitted a falsified copy of the contract in order to meet the bid requirements. The firm’s managing director also provided a falsified document related to its employee to materially impede OAI’s investigation.

The firm and its managing director accepted OAI’s proposed sanction of 5 years debarment commencing on 23 January 2014 up to and including 23 January 2019 and waived their right to appeal the sanction.

12-079-1401 Firm 1 5 years
23 Jan 2014

Fraudulent and obstructive practices
A firm and its managing director engaged in fraudulent and obstructive practices related to its bid for a construction contract under an ADB-financed project.

The firm inflated the value of a previous contract it had been awarded and submitted a falsified copy of the contract in order to meet the bid requirements. The firm’s managing director also provided a falsified document related to its employee to materially impede OAI’s investigation.

The firm and its managing director accepted OAI’s proposed sanction of 5 years debarment commencing on 23 January 2014 up to and including 23 January 2019 and waived their right to appeal the sanction.

12-079-1401 Individual 1 5 years
16 Jan 2014

Fraudulent practice
OAI received a complaint that an individual who was the Chairperson of a Consultant Selection Committee (CSC) was also one of the consultants hired by a bidding firm.

During the investigation, OAI established that the individual had regularly worked as a consultant for the firm in question, but that the employment information submitted by the individual varied in three different bid proposals. The firm claimed that it had relied on the individual consultant for the accuracy of the information, and the anomalies had slipped through internal controls.

The individual accepted OAI’s proposed sanction of three years debarment for submitting false information. In addition, the firm accepted OAI’s proposed sanctions of three years conditional non-debarment, during which the firm remains eligible to participate in ADB-related activities but is required to inform OAI of any expressions of interests and bid proposals it submits.

11-055-1401 Individual 1 3 years