Anticorruption and Integrity

Fraudulent practices

At the request of the Sanctions Appeals Committee, OAI reinvestigated the case involving a firm that had been debarred by the IOC for a minimum period of 3.5 years for engaging in fraudulent practice. After reinvestigation, OAI’s findings remained unchanged that the firm misrepresented its eligibility to participate in ADB-financed activities by submitting fraudulent work experience documents in its bids for two contracts.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings and imposed a debarment with conditional reinstatement for a minimum period of 4.5 years, which considered the previous debarment period plus the aggravating circumstance that the firm’s documents submitted in support of the appeal and reinvestigation misled ADB.

Fraudulent practices

In reviewing bid documents for an ADB-financed contract, the EA’s diligence identified suspected fraudulent practice by a firm. OAI’s investigation found that the firm and its authorized representative falsified the contract value of an ADB-financed contract to meet the bid criteria.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of fraudulent practice and imposed a 4.5-year debarment with conditional reinstatement on the parties. The IOC also considered aggravating circumstances, including providing misleading information to OAI’s investigators and the parties’ failure to respond to OAI’s findings. The parties may apply for reinstatement after the minimum debarment period and after the firm demonstrates compliance with certain conditions.

Fraudulent practices

In reviewing bid documents for an ADB-financed contract, the EA’s diligence identified suspected fraudulent practice by a firm. OAI’s investigation found that the firm and its authorized representative falsified the contract value of an ADB-financed contract to meet the bid criteria.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of fraudulent practice and imposed a 4.5-year debarment with conditional reinstatement on the parties. The IOC also considered aggravating circumstances, including providing misleading information to OAI’s investigators and the parties’ failure to respond to OAI’s findings. The parties may apply for reinstatement after the minimum debarment period and after the firm demonstrates compliance with certain conditions.

Fraudulent practices

In reviewing bid documents for a contract, OAI found that the firm and its authorized bid representative (the parties) falsely claimed to have completed a project to comply with bid qualifications for specific work experience.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of fraudulent practice and imposed a 3.5-year debarment on the parties. The IOC also considered aggravating circumstances, including the parties failure to respond to OAI’s findings. The parties may apply for reinstatement after the minimum debarment period and after the firm demonstrates compliance with certain conditions.

Fraudulent practices

In reviewing bid documents for a contract, OAI found that the firm and its authorized bid representative (the parties) falsely claimed to have completed a project to comply with bid qualifications for specific work experience.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of fraudulent practice and imposed a 3.5-year debarment on the parties. The IOC also considered aggravating circumstances, including the parties failure to respond to OAI’s findings. The parties may apply for reinstatement after the minimum debarment period and after the firm demonstrates compliance with certain conditions.

Fraudulent practices

During bid evaluation, an IA’s diligence identified that a bidder, through two employees, misrepresented and submitted falsified documents in its bid on an ADB-financed project. OAI’s investigation established that the firm submitted fraudulent corporate documents and falsely represented the status of its subsidiary, so that it could claim its work experience in the bid, to make it appear responsive, and to be awarded the contract.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings and imposed a minimum debarment period of 2 years on the firm and the two employees responsible for the integrity violations. The firm may apply for reinstatement after the minimum debarment period and after the firm demonstrates compliance with certain conditions.

Fraudulent practices

During bid evaluation, an IA’s diligence identified that a bidder, through two employees, misrepresented and submitted falsified documents in its bid on an ADB-financed project. OAI’s investigation established that the firm submitted fraudulent corporate documents and falsely represented the status of its subsidiary, so that it could claim its work experience in the bid, to make it appear responsive, and to be awarded the contract.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings and imposed a minimum debarment period of 2 years on the firm and the two employees responsible for the integrity violations. The firm may apply for reinstatement after the minimum debarment period and after the firm demonstrates compliance with certain conditions.

Fraudulent practices

A firm was temporarily suspended from participating in ADB-financed activities for misrepresenting its work experience in a bid for an ADB-financed contract. OAI’s preliminary investigation identified the falsified information and fraudulent documents submitted by the firm in support of its work experience. The correct information would have rendered the firm ineligible to participate in the bidding.

Fraudulent practices

In its review of the bidding documents for an ADB-financed contract, the EA identified that a bidder submitted fake documents. OAI’s investigation confirmed that the firm, through its now former-director, submitted fraudulent documents. 

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of fraud and, taking into account the firm’s failure to respond to OAI’s findings, imposed a 3.5 years minimum debarment on the firm and its former director. To become eligible to participate in ADB-funded projects at the end of the minimum debarment period, the firm will need to demonstrate that it complied with conditions to improve its internal controls and processes.

Fraudulent practices

In its review of the bidding documents for an ADB-financed contract, the EA identified that a bidder submitted fake documents. OAI’s investigation confirmed that the firm, through its now former-director, submitted fraudulent documents. 

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of fraud and, taking into account the firm’s failure to respond to OAI’s findings, imposed a 3.5 years minimum debarment on the firm and its former director. To become eligible to participate in ADB-funded projects at the end of the minimum debarment period, the firm will need to demonstrate that it complied with conditions to improve its internal controls and processes.

Fraudulent practices

Subsequent to awarding a contract to a firm, the EA’s extra verification of documents provided prior to contract award indicated that the firm submitted fraudulent documents. OAI’s investigation confirmed that the firm, through its director, submitted fraudulent documents to mislead the EA.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of fraud and imposed a three-year minimum debarment on the firm and its director. To become eligible to participate in ADB-funded projects at the end of the minimum debarment period, the firm will need to demonstrate that it complied with conditions to improve its internal controls and processes.

Fraudulent practices

Subsequent to awarding a contract to a firm, the EA’s extra verification of documents provided prior to contract award indicated that the firm submitted fraudulent documents. OAI’s investigation confirmed that the firm, through its director, submitted fraudulent documents to mislead the EA.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of fraud and imposed a three-year minimum debarment on the firm and its director. To become eligible to participate in ADB-funded projects at the end of the minimum debarment period, the firm will need to demonstrate that it complied with conditions to improve its internal controls and processes.

Fraudulent practices

In its review of the bidding documents for an ADB-financed contract, the EA identified that a bidder submitted fake documents. OAI’s investigation confirmed that the firm, through its now former-director, submitted fraudulent documents.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of fraud and, taking into account the firm’s failure to respond to OAI’s findings, imposed a 3.5 years minimum debarment on the firm and its former director. To become eligible to participate in ADB-funded projects at the end of the minimum debarment period, the firm will need to demonstrate that it complied with conditions to improve its internal controls and processes.

Fraudulent practices

In its review of the bidding documents for an ADB-financed contract, the EA identified that a bidder submitted fake documents. OAI’s investigation confirmed that the firm, through its now former-director, submitted fraudulent documents.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of fraud and, taking into account the firm’s failure to respond to OAI’s findings, imposed a 3.5 years minimum debarment on the firm and its former director. To become eligible to participate in ADB-funded projects at the end of the minimum debarment period, the firm will need to demonstrate that it complied with conditions to improve its internal controls and processes.

Fraudulent practices

OAI’s investigation substantiated allegations that a firm engaged in fraudulent practice by submitting false financial and experience documents in its bid for an ADB-financed contract. The firm concurred with OAI’s findings of fraud through misrepresentation and accepted OAI’s proposed sanction of the firm, its subsidiaries, and branches for two years.

Fraudulent practices

OAI received an allegation that a firm submitted false documents in its bid for an ADB-financed contract. OAI’s investigation confirmed that the firm, through its authorized representative, submitted falsified documents to demonstrate that they had the required work experience.

The firm and its authorized representative accepted OAI’s findings of fraudulent practices and the proposed minimum debarment period of three years. The debarment is extended to the firm’s two subsidiaries.

Fraudulent practices

OAI received an allegation that a firm submitted false documents in its bid for an ADB-financed contract. OAI’s investigation confirmed that the firm, through its authorized representative, submitted falsified documents to demonstrate that they had the required work experience.

The firm and its authorized representative accepted OAI’s findings of fraudulent practices and the proposed minimum debarment period of three years. The debarment is extended to the firm’s two subsidiaries.

Fraudulent practices

OAI investigated an allegation that a firm submitted fraudulent documents in support of its bids for two ADB-financed contracts. OAI’s investigation confirmed that the firm submitted fraudulent contracts and certifications and failed to disclose pending litigation.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of fraud and took into account the real or potential harm caused, considering that one of the contracts was awarded to the firm. The IOC imposed a five-year minimum debarment period on the firm and its general manager. To become eligible to participate in ADB-funded projects at the end of the minimum debarment period, the firm will need to demonstrate that it complied with conditions to improve its internal controls and processes.

Fraudulent practices

OAI investigated an allegation that a firm submitted fraudulent documents in support of its bids for two ADB-financed contracts. OAI’s investigation confirmed that the firm submitted fraudulent contracts and certifications and failed to disclose pending litigation.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of fraud and took into account the real or potential harm caused, considering that one of the contracts was awarded to the firm. The IOC imposed a five-year minimum debarment period on the firm and its general manager. To become eligible to participate in ADB-funded projects at the end of the minimum debarment period, the firm will need to demonstrate that it complied with conditions to improve its internal controls and processes.

Fraudulent practices

A firm was temporarily suspended from participating in any ADB-financed activities for submitting falsified documentation in its bid for an ADB-financed contract. OAI’s preliminary investigation obtained sufficient evidence to indicate that the firm submitted falsified documentation of its personnel’s work experience and failed to disclose its pending litigation and current work commitments/works in progress as required in the bidding documents.

The firm and its two authorized representatives accepted OAI’s findings of fraudulent practices and agreed to the proposed debarment of 4 years with the possibility of early reinstatement. The debarment period commenced on 29 January 2021. Should the firm meet certain conditions, it can apply for reinstatement after 29 January 2024.

Fraudulent practices

A firm was temporarily suspended from participating in any ADB-financed activities for submitting falsified documentation in its bid for an ADB-financed contract. OAI’s preliminary investigation obtained sufficient evidence to indicate that the firm submitted falsified documentation of its personnel’s work experience and failed to disclose its pending litigation and current work commitments/works in progress as required in the bidding documents.

The firm and its two authorized representatives accepted OAI’s findings of fraudulent practices and agreed to the proposed debarment of 4 years with the possibility of early reinstatement. The debarment period commenced on 29 January 2021. Should the firm meet certain conditions, it can apply for reinstatement after 29 January 2024.

Sanction violation

ADB's Indonesia RM’s diligence identified that an individual who was indefinitely debarred by ADB was a nominated expert of a consulting firm for an ADB-financed contract. OAI found that the individual misrepresented their eligibility in their submitted Curriculum Vitae and violated their ADB sanction.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of fraudulent practice and sanction violation, and that the individual’s actions warranted publication of sanction on ADB’s public website, which may lead to cross debarment by other MDBs.

Fraudulent practices

The EA’s diligence identified fraudulent practice by a firm. OAI’s investigation found that the firm, through its authorized bid representative, submitted falsified qualification documents to be responsive to the bid requirements of an ADB-financed contract.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of fraudulent practice, and debarred the firm and its representative for a minimum of 3 years and 3.5 years, respectively. In determining the debarment period, the IOC considered the representative’s failure to respond to OAI’s findings as an aggravating factor. The firm and representative must apply for reinstatement subsequent to the firm’s compliance with certain conditions after the minimum debarment period.

Fraudulent practices

The EA’s diligence identified fraudulent practice by a firm. OAI’s investigation found that the firm, through its authorized bid representative, submitted falsified qualification documents to be responsive to the bid requirements of an ADB-financed contract.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of fraudulent practice, and debarred the firm and its representative for a minimum of 3 years and 3.5 years, respectively. In determining the debarment period, the IOC considered the representative’s failure to respond to OAI’s findings as an aggravating factor. The firm and representative must apply for reinstatement subsequent to the firm’s compliance with certain conditions after the minimum debarment period.

Fraudulent practices

OAI received an allegation that a firm provided, in its bid, fraudulent completion certificates and contracts pertaining to its subcontractor’s work experience. OAI confirmed that these were fraudulent.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings. The IOC considered that the subcontractor and representative’s lack of cooperation as an aggravating factor and imposed a minimum 3.5-year debarment on them. At the end of the minimum debarment period, both parties will need to demonstrate that they have met reinstatement conditions to become eligible to participate in future ADB-financed activity. The IOC also agreed that OAI issue a reprimand to the firm’s Managing Director for not conducting appropriate due diligence on its subcontractor.

Fraudulent practices

OAI received an allegation that a firm provided, in its bid, fraudulent completion certificates and contracts pertaining to its subcontractor’s work experience. OAI confirmed that these were fraudulent.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings. The IOC considered that the subcontractor and representative’s lack of cooperation as an aggravating factor and imposed a minimum 3.5-year debarment on them. At the end of the minimum debarment period, both parties will need to demonstrate that they have met reinstatement conditions to become eligible to participate in future ADB-financed activity. The IOC also agreed that OAI issue a reprimand to the firm’s Managing Director for not conducting appropriate due diligence on its subcontractor.

Sanction violation

ADB project officers informed OAI that a firm violated ADB sanctions when it submitted three bids under ADB-financed projects while debarred by ADB.

Upon OAI’s recommendation, the IOC imposed a debarment of 4.5 years, to run concurrently with the existing sanction. The IOC considered the firm’s poor internal controls and failure to cooperate in determining the sanction period and extended the sanction to identified majority-owned subsidiaries and branches.

Fraudulent practices

On being alerted to concerns that the lead firm in a JV had submitted a falsified work experience in the JV’s bid for an ADB-financed contract, OAI established that the firm did submit fabricated information and failed to disclose this to the EA.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of fraudulent practice by the firm and its chairman, and imposed a five-year debarment, which included aggravating circumstances, due to the chairman’s involvement and the firm’s obstruction of OAI’s investigation. The firm and chairman must apply for reinstatement subsequent to the firm’s compliance with certain conditions after the minimum debarment period.

Fraudulent practices

On being alerted to concerns that the lead firm in a JV had submitted a falsified work experience in the JV’s bid for an ADB-financed contract, OAI established that the firm did submit fabricated information and failed to disclose this to the EA.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of fraudulent practice by the firm and its chairman, and imposed a five-year debarment, which included aggravating circumstances, due to the chairman’s involvement and the firm’s obstruction of OAI’s investigation. The firm and chairman must apply for reinstatement subsequent to the firm’s compliance with certain conditions after the minimum debarment period.

Fraudulent practices

The project officer identified a possible falsified curriculum vitae in a consulting firm’s proposal for an ADB-financed contract. OAI’s investigation found that the consultant falsely claimed to have obtained a postgraduate degree to be eligible as nominated key expert.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings and debarred the consultant for a minimum period of four years. The individual will need to comply with certain conditions to be eligible for reinstatement after the minimum debarment period.

Fraudulent practices

OAI received concerns from two EAs for two ADB-financed projects in different countries, that there were discrepancies in the firm’s work experience and incomplete financial statements, respectively. In addition, OAI received complaints from external sources that the firm submitted fake documents in a bid in another country.

OAI investigated the three cases together and established that the firm engaged in multiple integrity violations across the bids in the three countries. The firm committed fraudulent practices by entering into a fake joint venture with another firm, misrepresenting the firm’s work experience through the submission of falsified documents, and misrepresenting its financial capacity. 

The firm accepted OAI’s findings of fraud and the proposed debarment period of six years, with an option for early reinstatement after 4.5 years upon compliance with reinstatement conditions. The firm, its subsidiaries, and branches are ineligible to participate in ADB-related activities while debarred. 

Fraudulent practices

In conducting its evaluation of bids, an EA identified red flags in the bid of JV. OAI investigated the concerns identified and established that the lead firm in the JV, through its representative, submitted a falsework experience in the JV’s bid proposal.

On 18 December 2020, the IOC concurred with OAI’s preliminary findings of fraud and temporarily suspended the bidder for 180 days. Subsequently, on 18 May 2021, the lead firm and its authorized representative accepted OAI’s findings of fraudulent practice and agreed to the proposed debarment of three years with the possibility of early reinstatement. The debarment period commenced on 18 December 2020, and should the lead firm meet certain conditions, it can apply for reinstatement after 18 December 2022.

Fraudulent practices

In conducting its evaluation of bids, an EA identified red flags in the bid of JV. OAI investigated the concerns identified and established that the lead firm in the JV, through its representative, submitted a falsework experience in the JV’s bid proposal.

On 18 December 2020, the IOC concurred with OAI’s preliminary findings of fraud and temporarily suspended the bidder for 180 days. Subsequently, on 18 May 2021, the lead firm and its authorized representative accepted OAI’s findings of fraudulent practice and agreed to the proposed debarment of three years with the possibility of early reinstatement. The debarment period commenced on 18 December 2020, and should the lead firm meet certain conditions, it can apply for reinstatement after 18 December 2022.

Fraudulent practices

While conducting due diligence on an EOI submitted by a consultant, an ADB staff identified that the consultant may have failed to disclose a criminal conviction. OAI’s investigation established that the consultant engaged in fraudulent practice when they misrepresented that they did not have a prior conviction in their ADB's Consultant Management System profile and in four EOIs submitted between November 2020 and February 2021 for various consultancy positions.

The consultant accepted OAI’s findings of fraud and the proposed minimum debarment period of three years. The consultant is ineligible to participate in ADB-related activities while debarred. 

Fraudulent practices

The EA identified false work experience documents in a firm’s bid for an ADB-financed contract. OAI’s investigation found that the firm and its authorized bid representative falsely claimed to have completed a project to comply with bid qualifications for specific work experience.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings and sanctioned the firm and its representative for a minimum debarment period of three years. The firm and representative will need to implement certain conditions to be eligible for reinstatement after the minimum debarment period.

Fraudulent practices

The EA identified false work experience documents in a firm’s bid for an ADB-financed contract. OAI’s investigation found that the firm and its authorized bid representative falsely claimed to have completed a project to comply with bid qualifications for specific work experience.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings and sanctioned the firm and its representative for a minimum debarment period of three years. The firm and representative will need to implement certain conditions to be eligible for reinstatement after the minimum debarment period.

Fraudulent practices

In reviewing bid documents for an ADB-financed contract, the diligence by the EA identified red flags of fraudulent practice by a firm. OAI’s investigation found that the firm, through its authorized bid representative, submitted work experience documents for a non-existent project.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of fraudulent practice and imposed a four-year debarment on the firm and individual responsible for submitting the bid. The IOC also considered aggravating circumstances, including failure to cooperate with OAI’s inquiries. The firm and individual may apply for reinstatement subsequent to the firm’s compliance with certain conditions after the minimum debarment period.

Fraudulent practices

In reviewing bid documents for an ADB-financed contract, the diligence by the EA identified red flags of fraudulent practice by a firm. OAI’s investigation found that the firm, through its authorized bid representative, submitted work experience documents for a non-existent project.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of fraudulent practice and imposed a four-year debarment on the firm and individual responsible for submitting the bid. The IOC also considered aggravating circumstances, including failure to cooperate with OAI’s inquiries. The firm and individual may apply for reinstatement subsequent to the firm’s compliance with certain conditions after the minimum debarment period.

Fraudulent practices

OAI’s review of the bid submissions of two bidders for different packages in an ADB-financed project established that the firms, through their legal representatives, submitted falsified Audited Financial Statements in their bids in order to be responsive to the financial requirements of the project.

The IOC imposed a four-year debarment on the three firms and their legal representatives for fraudulent practice, and taking into account the failure of the firm’s and their representatives’ failure to cooperate. The controlling entity of one of the firms was also debarred for the same period.

OAI’s review of the bid submissions of two bidders for different packages in an ADB-financed project established that the firms, through their legal representatives, submitted falsified Audited Financial Statements in their bids in order to be responsive to the financial requirements of the project.  

The IOC imposed a four-year debarment on the three firms and their legal representatives for fraudulent practice, and taking into account the failure of the firm’s and their representatives’ failure to cooperate. The controlling entity of one of the firms was also debarred for the same period.

Fraudulent practices

OAI’s review of the bid submissions of two bidders for different packages in an ADB-financed project established that the firms, through their legal representatives, submitted falsified Audited Financial Statements in their bids in order to be responsive to the financial requirements of the project.  

The IOC imposed a four-year debarment on the three firms and their legal representatives for fraudulent practice, and taking into account the failure of the firm’s and their representatives’ failure to cooperate. The controlling entity of one of the firms was also debarred for the same period.

Fraudulent practices

OAI’s review of the bid submissions of two bidders for different packages in an ADB-financed project established that the firms, through their legal representatives, submitted falsified Audited Financial Statements in their bids in order to be responsive to the financial requirements of the project.  

The IOC imposed a four-year debarment on the three firms and their legal representatives for fraudulent practice, and taking into account the failure of the firm’s and their representatives’ failure to cooperate. The controlling entity of one of the firms was also debarred for the same period.

Fraudulent practices

After receiving a number of complaints relating to an individual soliciting funds from members of the public and posing as a project official on an ADB-financed project, OAI’s investigation established that the project is a scam. 

While no ADB funds were involved, the individual fraudulently represented their connection to the project and ADB to mislead the public into handing over supposed investment funds. OAI and ADB’s local office advised the public to report the scam to the local authorities. 

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings that the individual engaged in fraudulent practice, also taking into account aggravating circumstances, including harm caused to the public and continuation of the fraud despite awareness of OAI’s ongoing investigation; and debarred the individual for six years. The individual will need to implement certain conditions to be eligible for reinstatement after the minimum debarment period.  

Fraudulent practices

A firm was temporarily suspended from participating in ADB-financed activities for misrepresenting key information in bids for four ADB-financed contracts.

In the four bids, the firm declared that it had no litigation, arbitration, or non-performing contracts; however, when requested by the EA on one contract, it confirmed that it is involved in multiple ongoing arbitrations. OAI’s preliminary investigations also identified other ongoing arbitration and litigation that were not disclosed to the EA.

Fraudulent practices

OAI received an allegation that a firm submitted false documents in its bid for an ADB-financed contract. OAI’s investigation confirmed that the firm, through its proprietor, submitted a false work experience certificate and inaccurate Audited Financial Statements to comply with the bid’s work experience and financial requirements. 

The firm and its proprietor accepted OAI’s proposed sanction of a minimum debarment period of three years, with conditions for reinstatement.

Fraudulent practices

OAI received an allegation that a firm submitted false documents in its bid for an ADB-financed contract. OAI’s investigation confirmed that the firm, through its proprietor, submitted a false work experience certificate and inaccurate Audited Financial Statements to comply with the bid’s work experience and financial requirements. 

The firm and its proprietor accepted OAI’s proposed sanction of a minimum debarment period of three years, with conditions for reinstatement.

Fraudulent practices

The EA and the Project Team identified a fraudulent work experience certificate in a firm’s bid for an ADB-funded contract. OAI’s investigation found that the firm and its director/bid representative fraudulently claimed to have executed a project to comply with the similar work requirement under the Bidding Document. 

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings and sanctioned the firm and its representative. In imposing a debarment of five years, the IOC considered several aggravating circumstances, including the firm’s background showing a pattern of deceit, the management’s role in the misrepresentation, the continuation of the fraud after becoming aware of OAI’s investigation, and its failure to cooperate with OAI’s inquiries. The firm and representative will need to implement certain conditions to be eligible for reinstatement after the minimum debarment period.

Fraudulent practices

The EA and the Project Team identified a fraudulent work experience certificate in a firm’s bid for an ADB-funded contract. OAI’s investigation found that the firm and its director/bid representative fraudulently claimed to have executed a project to comply with the similar work requirement under the Bidding Document. 

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings and sanctioned the firm and its representative. In imposing a debarment of five years, the IOC considered several aggravating circumstances, including the firm’s background showing a pattern of deceit, the management’s role in the misrepresentation, the continuation of the fraud after becoming aware of OAI’s investigation, and its failure to cooperate with OAI’s inquiries. The firm and representative will need to implement certain conditions to be eligible for reinstatement after the minimum debarment period.  

Fraudulent practices

The Project Team identified red flags of possible fraud in a firm’s bid for an ADB-funded contract. OAI’s investigation confirmed that the firm, through its legal representative, falsified supporting documents in its bid, fraudulently claiming work on contracts not completed by the firm. 

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of fraud through misrepresentation. Due to aggravating circumstances, including failure to cooperate with OAI’s inquiries, the firm and its representative were sanctioned for four years. The firm will be required to demonstrate its compliance with certain conditions to be eligible for reinstatement after the minimum debarment period.

Fraudulent practices

The Project Team identified red flags of possible fraud in a firm’s bid for an ADB-funded contract. OAI’s investigation confirmed that the firm, through its legal representative, falsified supporting documents in its bid, fraudulently claiming work on contracts not completed by the firm. 

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of fraud through misrepresentation. Due to aggravating circumstances, including failure to cooperate with OAI’s inquiries, the firm and its representative were sanctioned for four years. The firm will be required to demonstrate its compliance with certain conditions to be eligible for reinstatement after the minimum debarment period.

Fraudulent practices

OAI received information that an individual consultant failed to disclose a criminal conviction in an EOI submitted through ADB’s Consultant Management System. OAI’s investigation established that the consultant repeatedly failed to disclose the criminal conviction in 64 EOIs that were submitted between May 2017 to May 2019.

The individual accepted OAI’s findings of fraudulent practices, and accepted a proposed minimum debarment period of four years, which considered the aggravating circumstance of the systemic misrepresentations. The individual consultant is ineligible to participate in ADB-related activities while debarred.

Fraudulent practices

Subsequent to receiving a complaint that a firm submitted a fraudulent document in support of its bid for an ADB-financed contract, OAI’s investigation established that the firm misrepresented the contract value of its work experience and submitted a falsified work completion certificate. OAI found that the firm did not have the relevant experience, submitted the certificate to appear responsive to the bid qualification requirements, and mislead the EA to be awarded the contract. 

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings, which were aggravated by the firm’s failure to cooperate during the investigation, and imposed a debarment period of four years. Conditions were also placed on the firm, which must be met for it to be eligible for reinstatement after the minimum debarment period.

Fraudulent practices

Subsequent to receiving a complaint that a firm submitted a fraudulent document in support of its bid for an ADB-financed contract, OAI’s investigation established that the firm misrepresented the contract value of its work experience and submitted a falsified work completion certificate. OAI found that the firm did not have the relevant experience, submitted the certificate to appear responsive to the bid qualification requirements, and mislead the EA to be awarded the contract. 

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings, which were aggravated by the firm’s failure to cooperate during the investigation, and imposed a debarment period of four years. Conditions were also placed on the firm, which must be met for it to be eligible for reinstatement after the minimum debarment period.

Fraudulent practices

The EA and the Project Team identified red flags of possible fraud in a firm’s bid for an ADB-funded contract. OAI’s investigation found that the firm and its CEO/bid representative falsified supporting documents in its bid, fraudulently claiming work on a contract which was completed by another firm.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of fraud through misrepresentation. Due to aggravating circumstances, including failure to cooperate with OAI’s inquiries, the firm and its representative were sanctioned for five years and six months. The IOC also concurred with OAI’s recommendations for the firm to meet certain conditions to be eligible for reinstatement after the minimum debarment period.

Fraudulent practices

The EA and the Project Team identified red flags of possible fraud in a firm’s bid for an ADB-funded contract. OAI’s investigation found that the firm and its CEO/bid representative falsified supporting documents in its bid, fraudulently claiming work on a contract which was completed by another firm.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of fraud through misrepresentation. Due to aggravating circumstances, including failure to cooperate with OAI’s inquiries, the firm and its representative were sanctioned for five years and six months. The IOC also concurred with OAI’s recommendations for the firm to meet certain conditions to be eligible for reinstatement after the minimum debarment period.

Fraudulent practices

An ADB resident mission forwarded concerns to OAI that a firm misrepresented its eligibility to participate in ADB-financed activities by submitting bids for three contracts while debarred. OAI’s investigation confirmed that the firm was debarred by ADB when it submitted its bids for the contracts, which it failed to declare.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of fraud and imposed a minimum debarment period of six years on the firm and its proprietor/authorized representative to run concurrent with the ongoing debarment. 

Fraudulent practices

An ADB resident mission forwarded concerns to OAI that a firm misrepresented its eligibility to participate in ADB-financed activities by submitting bids for three contracts while debarred. OAI’s investigation confirmed that the firm was debarred by ADB when it submitted its bids for the contracts, which it failed to declare.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings of fraud and imposed a minimum debarment period of six years on the firm and its proprietor/authorized representative to run concurrent with the ongoing debarment. 

Fraudulent practices

OAI received allegations that a firm recommended for contract award in an ADB project had submitted fraudulent documents in its bid. OAI’s investigation confirmed that, on a more probable than not basis, the firm and its director committed fraud by including a fraudulent Manufacturer’s Authorization in its bid to become an eligible bidder.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings and imposed a minimum 3.5-year debarment on the firm and its director.

Fraudulent practices

OAI received allegations that a firm recommended for contract award in an ADB project had submitted fraudulent documents in its bid. OAI’s investigation confirmed that, on a more probable than not basis, the firm and its director committed fraud by including a fraudulent Manufacturer’s Authorization in its bid to become an eligible bidder.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s findings and imposed a minimum 3.5-year debarment on the firm and its director.

Fraudulent practices

A firm was temporarily suspended from participating in any ADB-financed activities for submitting falsified documentation in its bid for an ADB-financed contract.

OAI’s preliminary investigation obtained sufficient evidence to indicate that the firm submitted falsified documentation of its personnel’s work experience, and failed to disclose pending litigation and current work commitments/works in progress, which is contrary to the firm’s declaration in its bid documents that it had no pending litigation or work commitments.

Fraudulent practices

In an ongoing investigation, OAI found sufficient evidence to establish that a firm submitted false bank guarantees in its bids for four ADB-financed contracts. As the firm is actively bidding on ADB projects, OAI recommended to the IOC that the firm be temporarily suspended while the investigation continues.

The IOC concurred with OAI’s preliminary findings and provided its no objection to the temporary suspension. The firm is ineligible to participate in ADB-financed activities for engaging in fraudulent practices.