Case Summaries

Date of Sanction Case Case Number Entity Type Entity Number Period
23 June 2016

Fraudulent Practice

In conducting due diligence, OAI established that a firm and its proprietor misrepresented the firm’s association with a more renowned firm. The firm and its proprietor also misrepresented that its products, sold to ADB, were ISO-certified.

The IOC agreed with OAI’s findings that both the proprietor and the firm defrauded ADB by misrepresenting their association to obtain a benefit, and sanctioned both for 5 years due to the aggravating circumstances that were involved, pursuant to paragraph 88 (i), (ii), and (iii) of ADB’s Integrity Principles and Guidelines.

15-068-1606 Individual 1 5 years
23 June 2016

Fraudulent Practice

In conducting due diligence, OAI established that a firm and its proprietor misrepresented the firm’s association with a more renowned firm. The firm and its proprietor also misrepresented that its products, sold to ADB, were ISO-certified.

The IOC agreed with OAI’s findings that both the proprietor and the firm defrauded ADB by misrepresenting their association to obtain a benefit, and sanctioned both for 5 years due to the aggravating circumstances that were involved, pursuant to paragraph 88 (i), (ii), and (iii) of ADB’s Integrity Principles and Guidelines.

15-068-1606 Firm 1 5 years
23 June 2016

Fraudulent Practice

In 2014, an ADB staff forwarded concerns about potential fraud committed by a bidder under an ADB-financed project.

OAI found that the bidder, a joint venture (JV) comprising two-member firms, and the JV’s two authorized representatives engaged in fraudulent practices by submitting three fraudulent work certificates in its bid.  The authorized representatives were also directors and shareholders of the two-member firms. 

The IOC imposed a sanction of 4 years on the JV, its two-member firms, and the authorized representatives.  In coming to its decision, the IOC considered the parties’ non-cooperation with OAI’s investigation as an aggravating circumstance.

15-064-1606 Individual 2 4 years
23 June 2016

Fraudulent Practice

In 2014, an ADB staff forwarded concerns about potential fraud committed by a bidder under an ADB-financed project.

OAI found that the bidder, a joint venture (JV) comprising two-member firms, and the JV’s two authorized representatives engaged in fraudulent practices by submitting three fraudulent work certificates in its bid.  The authorized representatives were also directors and shareholders of the two-member firms. 

The IOC imposed a sanction of 4 years on the JV, its two-member firms, and the authorized representatives.  In coming to its decision, the IOC considered the parties’ non-cooperation with OAI’s investigation as an aggravating circumstance.

15-064-1606 Firm 3 4 years
23 June 2016

Fraudulent Practice

OAI found that a firm in a joint venture misrepresented the lead firm’s participation in the bid. The misrepresentation included a fraudulent joint venture agreement, power of attorney, and past work experience, among others. 

As the firm and its owner failed to cooperate with OAI’s investigation, the IOC imposed sanctions of 4 years on the firm and its owner.  Further, the IOC also debarred an associated firm for 4 years to avoid the circumvention of sanctions.

14-084-1606 Individual 1 4 years
23 June 2016

Fraudulent Practice

OAI found that a firm in a joint venture misrepresented the lead firm’s participation in the bid. The misrepresentation included a fraudulent joint venture agreement, power of attorney, and past work experience, among others. 

As the firm and its owner failed to cooperate with OAI’s investigation, the IOC imposed sanctions of 4 years on the firm and its owner.  Further, the IOC also debarred an associated firm for 4 years to avoid the circumvention of sanctions.

14-084-1606 Firm 2 4 years
20 June 2016

Abuse and fraudulent practices

An individual submitted an entry to ADB’s online photo competition for non-professional photographers.  The competition required that entries must be taken by the contestants and not previously published.  ADB received a complaint alleging that the photo submitted by the individual was not original. 

OAI established that the individual had committed fraud by misrepresenting that the photo entry was original and had not been previously published.  The individual accepted OAI’s proposed 3-year sanction which took into account the materiality and consequences that could have resulted in significant reputational risk to ADB.

16-006-1606 Individual 1 3 years
2 June 2016

Fraudulent practice

OAI received information that an individual applying for an ADB staff position misrepresented his educational qualification. OAI confirmed that the individual had not obtained the degree in question. The individual accepted OAI’s proposed sanction of 18 months, which takes into account a mitigating circumstance in paragraph 88, Section (vi) of the Integrity Principles and Guidelines.

16-020-1606 Individual 1 1.5 years
18 May 2016

Fraudulent and collusive practices and a conflict of interest

A complaint received from an RM into collusive practices by two firms resulted in the IOC imposing debarments of between 5 and 7 years on two firms and three government officials, who own the two firms.

OAI found that the owners of the firms colluded to defraud ADB by submitting false bids to favor the winning bidder whose owner was also employed by the implementing agency.

14-042-1605 Individual 1 5 years
18 May 2016

Fraudulent and collusive practices and a conflict of interest

A complaint received from an RM into collusive practices by two firms resulted in the IOC imposing debarments of between 5 and 7 years on two firms and three government officials, who own the two firms.

OAI found that the owners of the firms colluded to defraud ADB by submitting false bids to favor the winning bidder whose owner was also employed by the implementing agency.

14-042-1605 Firm 1 5 years
18 May 2016

Fraudulent and collusive practices and a conflict of interest

A complaint received from an RM into collusive practices by two firms resulted in the IOC imposing debarments of between 5 and 7 years on two firms and three government officials, who own the two firms.

OAI found that the owners of the firms colluded to defraud ADB by submitting false bids to favor the winning bidder whose owner was also employed by the implementing agency.

14-042-1605 Individual 2 7 years
18 May 2016

Fraudulent and collusive practices and a conflict of interest

A complaint received from an RM into collusive practices by two firms resulted in the IOC imposing debarments of between 5 and 7 years on two firms and three government officials, who own the two firms.

OAI found that the owners of the firms colluded to defraud ADB by submitting false bids to favor the winning bidder whose owner was also employed by the implementing agency.

14-042-1605 Firm 1 7 years
18 May 2016

Fraudulent practice

Vigilant staff identified that the two firms in the JV may have submitted false work completion certificates.

OAI confirmed staffs’ initial assessment that the JV submitted two false completion certificates, and established that the JV also submitted falsified subcontract agreements. Neither firm cooperated with OAI’s inquiries. One firm obstructed the inquiries by providing false explanations and falsificated letters.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings and debarred the lead firm and its two representatives for 4 years, and the second JV firm and its representative were debarred for 3.5 years.

13-092-1605 Individual 1 3.5 years
18 May 2016

Fraudulent practice

Vigilant staff identified that the two firms in the JV may have submitted false work completion certificates.

OAI confirmed staffs’ initial assessment that the JV submitted two false completion certificates, and established that the JV also submitted falsified subcontract agreements. Neither firm cooperated with OAI’s inquiries. One firm obstructed the inquiries by providing false explanations and falsificated letters.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings and debarred the lead firm and its two representatives for 4 years, and the second JV firm and its representative were debarred for 3.5 years.

13-092-1605 Firm 1 3.5 years
18 May 2016

Fraudulent and obstructive practices

Vigilant staff identified that the two firms in the JV may have submitted false work completion certificates.

OAI confirmed staffs’ initial assessment that the JV submitted two false completion certificates, and established that the JV also submitted falsified subcontract agreements. Neither firm cooperated with OAI’s inquiries. One firm obstructed the inquiries by providing false explanations and falsificated letters.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings and debarred the lead firm and its two representatives for 4 years, and the second JV firm and its representative were debarred for 3.5 years.

13-092-1605 Individual 2 4 years
18 May 2016

Fraudulent and obstructive practices

Vigilant staff identified that the two firms in the JV may have submitted false work completion certificates.

OAI confirmed staffs’ initial assessment that the JV submitted two false completion certificates, and established that the JV also submitted falsified subcontract agreements. Neither firm cooperated with OAI’s inquiries. One firm obstructed the inquiries by providing false explanations and falsificated letters.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings and debarred the lead firm and its two representatives for 4 years, and the second JV firm and its representative were debarred for 3.5 years.

13-092-1605 Firm 1 4 years
18 May 2016

Fraudulent practice

OAI investigated allegations of fraudulent practices committed by two subcontractors and their representatives in the bidding for an ADB-funded project.

OAI established that the firms and their representatives failed to disclose their conflict of interest as required by the bidding documents. The IOC)debarred the firms and their representatives for 3 years.

12-029-1605 Individual 2 3 years
18 May 2016

Fraudulent practice

OAI investigated allegations of fraudulent practices committed by two subcontractors and their representatives in the bidding for an ADB-funded project.

OAI established that the firms and their representatives failed to disclose their conflict of interest as required by the bidding documents. The IOC)debarred the firms and their representatives for 3 years.

12-029-1605 Firm 2 3 years
04 May 2016

Fraudulent practice

OAI found that an individual and his firm misrepresented that they were connected to ADB and altered official ADB correspondence, in an attempt to scam private investors on supposed ADB-financed projects.

The IOC imposed a 6-year debarment on the individual, the firm and five other associated firms taking into account lack of cooperation, sophistication of the fraud and the impact on ADB’s reputation and the public.

16-002-1604 Individual 6 6 years
04 May 2016

Fraudulent practice

OAI found that an individual and his firm misrepresented that they were connected to ADB and altered official ADB correspondence, in an attempt to scam private investors on supposed ADB-financed projects.

The IOC imposed a 6-year debarment on the individual, the firm and five other associated firms taking into account lack of cooperation, sophistication of the fraud and the impact on ADB’s reputation and the public.

16-002-1604 Firm 6 6 years
29 Apr 2016

Fraudulent and collusive practices

OAI investigated allegations of fraudulent and collusive practices committed by five firms and four individuals in an ADB-financed project.

OAI established that the firms and their representatives colluded to misrepresent, by concealing to the EA and ADB, who was providing the services for the two contracts. The result of the collusive practice and fraud was to improperly benefit from ADB’s project.

The Integrity Oversight Committee (IOC) imposed debarments ranging from 3 to 5 years to five firms and four individuals taking into account the sophistication and systemic nature of the integrity violations and the roles played in carrying these out.

12-096-1604 Individual 3 3 years
29 Apr 2016

Fraudulent and collusive practices

OAI investigated allegations of fraudulent and collusive practices committed by five firms and four individuals in an ADB-financed project.

OAI established that the firms and their representatives colluded to misrepresent, by concealing to the EA and ADB, who was providing the services for the two contracts. The result of the collusive practice and fraud was to improperly benefit from ADB’s project.

The Integrity Oversight Committee (IOC) imposed debarments ranging from 3 to 5 years to five firms and four individuals taking into account the sophistication and systemic nature of the integrity violations and the roles played in carrying these out.

12-096-1604 Individual 1 5 years
29 Apr 2016

Fraudulent and collusive practices

OAI investigated allegations of fraudulent and collusive practices committed by five firms and four individuals in an ADB-financed project.

OAI established that the firms and their representatives colluded to misrepresent, by concealing to the EA and ADB, who was providing the services for the two contracts. The result of the collusive practice and fraud was to improperly benefit from ADB’s project.

The Integrity Oversight Committee (IOC) imposed debarments ranging from 3 to 5 years to five firms and four individuals taking into account the sophistication and systemic nature of the integrity violations and the roles played in carrying these out.

12-096-1604 Firm 3 3 years
29 Apr 2016

Fraudulent and collusive practices

OAI investigated allegations of fraudulent and collusive practices committed by five firms and four individuals in an ADB-financed project.

OAI established that the firms and their representatives colluded to misrepresent, by concealing to the EA and ADB, who was providing the services for the two contracts. The result of the collusive practice and fraud was to improperly benefit from ADB’s project.

The Integrity Oversight Committee (IOC) imposed debarments ranging from 3 to 5 years to five firms and four individuals taking into account the sophistication and systemic nature of the integrity violations and the roles played in carrying these out.

12-096-1604 Firm 2 4 years
13 Apr 2016

Fraudulent practice

OAI established that an ex-staff engaged in corrupt activities in ADB’s institutional procurement, which took place over a prolonged period of time. His corrupt activities commenced while conducting his official duties and responsibilities as staff, and continued beyond his separation from ADB, when he rendered services as third-party service provider. OAI also found that this individual obstructed OAI's investigation.

The IOC considered the fact that the individual engaged in corrupt activities while staff, the resultant harm to ADB's interests, and the duration of the integrity violation, as significant aggravating factors, and imposed on him an indefinite debarment. The IOC also required that his name be published, subject to the assessment of any appeal received during the 90-day sanctions appeal period.

15-066-1604 Individual 1 Indefinite

13 Apr 2016

Corrupt practices

OAI found that an individual engaged in corrupt activities over a prolonged period of time while providing contractual services to ADB through a firm. The IOC, which considered the resultant harm to ADB's interests and the duration of the integrity violation as significant aggravating circumstances, imposed a 7-year sanction against the individual.

The IOC considered the firm responsible for the individual's actions, and imposed a 4-year debarment with conditional reinstatement on the firm. The IOC determined that the firm may qualify for early reinstatement, subject to fulfillment of certain conditions.

15-065-1604 Individual 1 7 years

13 Apr 2016

Corrupt practices

OAI found that an individual engaged in corrupt activities over a prolonged period of time while providing contractual services to ADB through a firm. The IOC, which considered the resultant harm to ADB's interests and the duration of the integrity violation as significant aggravating circumstances, imposed a 7-year sanction against the individual.

The IOC considered the firm responsible for the individual's actions, and imposed a 4-year debarment with conditional reinstatement on the firm. The IOC determined that the firm may qualify for early reinstatement, subject to fulfillment of certain conditions.

15-065-1604 Firm 1 4 years
13 Apr 2016

Fraudulent practice

OAI received a complaint regarding fraudulent practice in the bidding process for a contract under an ADB-financed project.

OAI confirmed that a firm and its proprietor had submitted a contract regarding prior experience in its bid, which had been agreed but never executed. The firm never responded to OAI’s repeated requests for information.

The IOC determined that the firm and its proprietor had defrauded ADB and imposed a 4-year debarment on the parties involved.

14-065-1604 Individual 1 4 years
13 Apr 2016

Fraudulent practice

OAI received a complaint regarding fraudulent practice in the bidding process for a contract under an ADB-financed project.

OAI confirmed that a firm and its proprietor had submitted a contract regarding prior experience in its bid, which had been agreed but never executed. The firm never responded to OAI’s repeated requests for information.

The IOC determined that the firm and its proprietor had defrauded ADB and imposed a 4-year debarment on the parties involved.

14-065-1604 Firm 1 4 years
13 Apr 2016

Conflict of interest and collusive practice

OAI received a complaint that two firms, which were related to each other, submitted bids for the same contract under an ADB-financed project.

OAI confirmed that the two companies were set up by individual X and his brother-in-law Y as dummy companies to bid for contracts, and if the contracts were won, a third company owned by X would implement them.

The IOC took into account the level of cooperation provided by X and Y during the investigation and their limited awareness of the collusive practice. However, the IOC determined that the firms and their proprietors had colluded and imposed a 2-year debarment on the three firms and the two proprietors.

14-061-1604 Individual 2 2 years
13 Apr 2016

Conflict of interest and collusive practice

OAI received a complaint that two firms, which were related to each other, submitted bids for the same contract under an ADB-financed project.

OAI confirmed that the two companies were set up by individual X and his brother-in-law Y as dummy companies to bid for contracts, and if the contracts were won, a third company owned by X would implement them.

The IOC took into account the level of cooperation provided by X and Y during the investigation and their limited awareness of the collusive practice. However, the IOC determined that the firms and their proprietors had colluded and imposed a 2-year debarment on the three firms and the two proprietors.

14-061-1604 Firm 3 2 years
19 Feb 2016

Fraudulent practices

OAI received allegations that a certain firm submitted fraudulent financial statements in support of its bid for an ADB project. OAI confirmed that there were two different sets of Independent Auditors Report and Financial Statements.

The firm admitted to the fraudulent practice and accepted OAI’s proposed sanction of 3 years.

14-045-1602

Firm 1 3 years
19 Feb 2016

Corrupt practices

OAI received information that a firm paid and offered bribes for the award of ADB contracts. OAI established that the firm had paid kickbacks to one ADB staff and offered a bribe to another ADB staff.

As a result, the IOC debarred the firm for corrupt practices for a period of 7 years and the representative for 4 years. Further it extended the sanctions to an associated firm for 4 years to prevent circumvention of sanctions.

In making its determinations, the IOC took into account the damage to ADB’s interests, repeated nature of the integrity violations over an extended period, management involvement, significance of the role played, and the involvement of ADB staff.

15-070-1602 Individual 1 4 years
19 Feb 2016

Corrupt practices

OAI received information that a firm paid and offered bribes for the award of ADB contracts. OAI established that the firm had paid kickbacks to one ADB staff and offered a bribe to another ADB staff.

As a result, the IOC debarred the firm for corrupt practices for a period of 7 years and the representative for 4 years. Further it extended the sanctions to an associated firm for 4 years to prevent circumvention of sanctions.

In making its determinations, the IOC took into account the damage to ADB’s interests, repeated nature of the integrity violations over an extended period, management involvement, significance of the role played, and the involvement of ADB staff.

15-070-1602 Firm 1 4 years
19 Feb 2016

Corrupt practices

OAI received information that a firm paid and offered bribes for the award of ADB contracts. OAI established that the firm had paid kickbacks to one ADB staff and offered a bribe to another ADB staff.

As a result, the IOC debarred the firm for corrupt practices for a period of 7 years and the representative for 4 years. Further it extended the sanctions to an associated firm for 4 years to prevent circumvention of sanctions.

In making its determinations, the IOC took into account the damage to ADB’s interests, repeated nature of the integrity violations over an extended period, management involvement, significance of the role played, and the involvement of ADB staff.

15-070-1602 Firm 1 7 years
19 Feb 2016

Fraudulent practice

In 2015, OAI received a complaint that a firm while still debarred and its proprietor had violated its sanctions by submitting one bid each for two contracts totaling $161,074 under an ADB-financed project. The firm had been previously sanctioned for fraudulent practice (misrepresentation) for a period of 4 years.

OAI established that the firm and its proprietor had indeed submitted two bids. The firm could not be contacted at the addresses known to ADB.

The Integrity Oversight Committee (IOC) determined that the firm and its proprietor had defrauded ADB and imposed a 3-year debarment on the parties involved. Given that the firm has violated its sanction and the parties could not be contacted, the sanction was posted on ADB’s public website.

14-073-1602 Individual 1 3 years
19 Feb 2016

Fraudulent practice

In 2015, OAI received a complaint that a firm while still debarred and its proprietor had violated its sanctions by submitting one bid each for two contracts totaling $161,074 under an ADB-financed project. The firm had been previously sanctioned for fraudulent practice (misrepresentation) for a period of 4 years.

OAI established that the firm and its proprietor had indeed submitted two bids. The firm could not be contacted at the addresses known to ADB.

The Integrity Oversight Committee (IOC) determined that the firm and its proprietor had defrauded ADB and imposed a 3-year debarment on the parties involved. Given that the firm has violated its sanction and the parties could not be contacted, the sanction was posted on ADB’s public website.

14-073-1602 Firm 1 3 years
11 Feb 2016

Fraudulent practice

OAI received allegations that a certain firm, through the actions of its representative, submitted fake work certificates in support of its bid for an ADB project.

OAI confirmed that the work certificates were indeed fraudulent. When OAI confronted the firm and representative with its findings, both the firm and representative admitted to fraudulent practice.

The firm and individual accepted OAI’s proposed sanction of 3 years with conditional reinstatement, after taking into account aggravating circumstances found in Sections (iii) and (vi) under paragraph 88 of the Integrity Principles and Guidelines (IPG), vis-à-vis mitigating circumstances found in Sections (vi), (xi) and (xii) under paragraph 88 of the IPG. OAI determined that the firm and individual may qualify to early reinstatement, subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions.

14-079-1602 Individual 1 3 years
11 Feb 2016

Fraudulent practice

OAI received allegations that a certain firm, through the actions of its representative, submitted fake work certificates in support of its bid for an ADB project.

OAI confirmed that the work certificates were indeed fraudulent. When OAI confronted the firm and representative with its findings, both the firm and representative admitted to fraudulent practice.

The firm and individual accepted OAI’s proposed sanction of 3 years with conditional reinstatement, after taking into account aggravating circumstances found in Sections (iii) and (vi) under paragraph 88 of the Integrity Principles and Guidelines (IPG), vis-à-vis mitigating circumstances found in Sections (vi), (xi) and (xii) under paragraph 88 of the IPG. OAI determined that the firm and individual may qualify to early reinstatement, subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions.

14-079-1602 Firm 1 3 years