Irregularity and fraud management

Perception of awareness on irregularities and fraud by civil servants (%)

Analysis of survey responses from a sample of public servants to the following question or statement: “To what extent do you agree with the following statement: If in the exercise of my work in the organisation, I become aware of a case of an unethical irregularity or potential fraud, I know how to report it.” Answer options are: Strongly disagree, Tend to disagree, Neither disagree nor agree, Tend to agree, Strongly agree, Do not know, Prefer not to answer. Points are allocated based on the percentage of respondents who replied “Tend to agree” and “Strongly agree” to the survey question (x): • x < 10% = 0 points. • 10% ≤ x < 90% = linear function. • x ≥ 90% = 2 points.

The organisation assesses irregularity and fraud risk and adopts the necessary mitigating actions

Analysis of five large budget organisations (including three ministries) to assess the procedures for effective prevention, detection and reporting on irregularities and fraud, as well as co-ordination with the relevant bodies. The analysis is carried out based on actual documentation demonstrating the existence of procedures and the effective reporting during the last calendar year or later. The sample bodies include three ministries (ministries responsible for health, interior and infrastructure), and two large agencies (tax administration, road administration). If any of the sample bodies does not exist in the country, alternative bodies will be selected to assess the sample-based criteria. Review of the risk register/risk assessment documentation to verify that the risk of fraud has been considered among the risks for the achievement of the objectives of the organisation.

There is a procedure for reporting on irregularities and suspected fraud, with clear responsibilities assigned in the organisation

Analysis of five large budget organisations (including three ministries) to assess the procedures for effective prevention, detection and reporting on irregularities and fraud, as well as co-ordination with the relevant bodies. The analysis is carried out based on actual documentation demonstrating the existence of procedures and the effective reporting during the last calendar year or later. The sample bodies include three ministries (ministries responsible for health, interior and infrastructure), and two large agencies (tax administration, road administration). If any of the sample bodies does not exist in the country, alternative bodies will be selected to assess the sample-based criteria. Review of the legislation, documentation, instructions, guidelines, manuals, etc. on management of irregularities and fraud, to verify that a clear procedure exists. The procedure can be established at the level of the public administration or by the sample body but, in both cases, responsibility has to be clearly assigned within the organisation (coordination, reporting, etc.).

Irregularity cases detected are addressed within the organisation and/or by the MoF and its specialised administration

Analysis of five large budget organisations (including three ministries) to assess the procedures for effective prevention, detection and reporting on irregularities and fraud, as well as co-ordination with the relevant bodies. The analysis is carried out based on actual documentation demonstrating the existence of procedures and the effective reporting during the last calendar year or later. The sample bodies include three ministries (ministries responsible for health, interior and infrastructure), and two large agencies (tax administration, road administration). If any of the sample bodies does not exist in the country, alternative bodies will be selected to assess the sample-based criteria. Review of internal procedures and information obtained in the interviews, to verify that the irregularities reported by management controls, or by internal or external auditors are addressed either within the ministry by relevant administrative measures and/or by the MoF and its specialised administration (financial Inspection or similar).

Reporting of irregularities is effective

Analysis of the information provided by the five sample bodies or by co-ordinating bodies, to verify that at least one case of irregularity has been reported in each sample entity in the last full calendar year. The sample bodies include three ministries (ministries responsible for health, interior and infrastructure), and two large agencies (tax administration, road administration). If any of the sample bodies does not exist in the country, alternative bodies will be selected to assess the sample-based criteria.

Mechanisms for co-ordination and co-operation between bodies with responsibilities related to irregularities and suspected fraud are established

Analysis of the information from the MoF (CHU, financial inspection) on the mechanisms for co-ordination and cooperation between bodies responsible for management and investigation of irregularities and suspected fraud. These mechanisms can include the exchange of information and regular follow-up, the co-ordination by a specific body, the creation of a network, etc.