Factsheet N 15. Anti-fraud strategy

Similar documents
1: ASSESSMENT OF EXPOSURE TO SPECIFIC FRAUD RISKS - SELECTION OF APPLICANTS BY MANAGING AUTHORITIES

INTERREG - IPA CBC ROMANIA-SERBIA PROGRAMME

ANTI-FRAUD STRATEGY INTERREG IPA CBC PROGRAMMES BULGARIA SERBIA BULGARIA THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA BULGARIA TURKEY

Fraud Risk Management MANAGING AUTHORITY OF EUROPEAN TERRITORIAL COOPERATION PROGRAMMES-UNIT A'

Partners and FLC Info day. Madrid, 22/06/2017

FLC Guidance. Page 1. Version. September *Disclaimer: This is a living document and further content will be developed at a later stage.

Identifying and preventing fraud & corruption in ESI Funds. Fraud prevention: Audit and control systems; Reporting fraud; Fraud indicators.

Fact Sheet; Errors, financial corrections, irregularities, recoveries and withdrawals

Anti-Fraud Policy Date: Version: Review Date:

Counter Theft, Fraud and Corruption Policy

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

THE GREEK ANTI-FRAUD STRATEGY FOR STRUCTURAL ACTIONS - ACTION PLAN (update 2017)

COMMISSION DECISION. of ON THE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF THE SCHENGEN FACILITY IN CROATIA. (only the English text is authentic)

Guidance document on. management verifications to be carried out by Member States on operations co-financed by

Arachne. Be distinctive. Social Europe

ANTI-TAX EVASION POLICY

Version Three offer rules - modifications about beneficiaries asking for offers instead of collecting them.

COMMISSION DECISION. C(2007)6121 of 12/12/2007

Guidance on a common methodology for the assessment of management and control systems in the Member States ( programming period)

Terms of Reference for the Fund Operator The EEA and Norway Grants Global Fund for Regional Cooperation EEA and Norwegian Financial Mechanisms

Table of contents. Introduction Regulatory requirements... 3

Financial rules and procedures in Interreg Europe - second call projects

Partnership Agreement between the Lead Partner and the other project partners

Anti-Fraud and Corruption Policy

The Co-operative Academies Trust Anti-Fraud and Anti-Bribery Policy. Approved by the Trust Board on 21 April 2016 Implementation from 22 April 2016

COMMISSION DECISION. of on technical provisions necessary for the operation of the transition facility in the Republic of Croatia

Report to the. Contact Committee. of the heads of the Supreme Audit Institutions. of the Member States of the European Union

Factsheet N 6 Project implementation: delivering project outputs, achieving project objectives and bringing about the desired change

ESMA-EBA Principles for Benchmark-Setting Processes in the EU

A New Leaf project. Final conference. New policies against frauds in agriculture and shared models of detection and control by the Paying Agencies

Criminal Facilitation of Tax Evasion

South East Europe (SEE) SEE Control Guidelines

ANTI FRAUD, BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION POLICY

COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU)

Policies, Procedures, Guidelines and Protocols. Document Details. Anti-Fraud, Bribery and Corruption Strategy

Criminal Finances Act Policy

amended from time to time concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises

INTERREG 2 Seas Mers Zeeën First Level Control Manual

Guidance for Member States on the Drawing of Management Declaration and Annual Summary

ANTI-FRAUD, BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION POLICY AND STRATEGY THE VIEW TRUST

ETF ANTI-FRAUD STRATEGY AND ACTION PLAN

Anti-Money Laundering and Combating Financing of Terrorism Framework 17 January 2018

European GNSS Supervisory Authority

COMMISSION DECISION. of

FAQ. Questions and answers relating to the 2014 call for proposals for NGO operating grants for funding in 2015 (Latest update September 2014)

FRAUD & THEFT POLICY & RESPONSE PLAN

ANTI-FRAUD POLICY. Reference No: ANTIFP-251. Policy Type: Governance. Directorate Area: All Directorates. Policy Author / Champion: Maurice Atkinson

Capital split between compartments

Financial Crime Policy

Revenue Scotland Counter-Fraud Policy

Fraud Control Framework

Title: Anti-Bribery Policy

EUROPEAN COMMISSION. EGESIF_ final 22/02/2016

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL REGIONAL AND URBAN POLICY

ERDF SUBSIDY CONTRACT NO...

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 291 thereof,

CARIBBEAN DEVELOPMENT BANK STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR INTEGRITY, COMPLIANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY PILLARS I AND II INTEGRITY AND ETHICS POLICY

FINANCIAL CONTROL OF FUNDS CO-FINANCED FROM THE EU BUDGET: POSSIBILITIES OF CONSIDERING NEW AND MORE FAVORABLE LEGAL PROVISIONS

First Level Control of finance and activities: The Programme rules

The investment shall be newly originated (not a refinancing). The investments shall be expected to be financially viable.

OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET

LIST OF FINAL GUIDANCE NOTES APPROVED BY COCOF FROM 2006 TO 2011

Panel 3 The European Court of Auditors procurement audit methodology

Overview of Procurement and Integrity at the EIB. Andreja Neral Lamza & Mirela Lascu, European Investment Bank

Bribery Act 2010 Guidance on Implementation

Compliance audit of the Managing Authority of Estonia Russia Cross- Border Cooperation Programme

EACEA. Cluster Meeting

CLOSURE GUIDELINES SEMINAR. Section 4 Submission of closure documents

INTERSERVE PLC POLICY ON FRAUD

CEF Model Grant Agreement Audit Aspects Introducing Annex VII Certificate on Financial Statements

Regulation on the implementation of the European Economic Area (EEA) Financial Mechanism

ANTI-FACILITATION OF TAX EVASION POLICY

Agreement on the Management, Financial and Control Systems of Interreg Baltic Sea Region ( )

Q&A on simplified cost options in programmes. March 2018 Application, control and audit: use of simplified cost options for staff costs

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

EC Guidance. Management verifications and audit

Recommendation of the Council for Further Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions

ANTI-FRAUD AND CORRUPTION POLICY

Anti - Fraud and Corruption Policy

Anti-Fraud Policy. Version: 8.0 Approval Status: Approved. Document Owner: Graham Feek. Review Date: 07/12/2018

Financial Reporting First Level Control

First Level Control of finance and activities: The Programme rules

Audit & Compliance Guidance

HUMAN CAPITAL FRAUD AND CORRUPTION PREVENTION

Trends in areas of public procurement and anti-corruption

ESI funds in compliance with State aid rules

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

APPENDIX 2 CORPORATE ANTI-FRAUD AND CORRUPTION STRATEGY

Revised: May Fraud Prevention Policy

Guide to Financial Issues relating to ICT PSP Grant Agreements

ANTI-CORRUPTION POLICY

Irregularities and Fraud in ESI Funds and Public Procurement

This document sets out the University s position on Fraud and Bribery and its framework for addressing the Bribery Act Scope

Guidance for Member States on Performance framework, review and reserve

Project Selection Criteria Transnational Cooperation Programme Interreg Balkan Mediterranean

This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents


Hundred and Thirty-fourth Session. Rome, October WFP Anti-Fraud and Anti-Corruption Policy

CSJU-Procedure 2.5. Guidelines for Members and Partners on Subcontracting

OPERATING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Chapter 12 Due Diligence Policy and Procedures. Effective from 28 November 2016

Transcription:

Factsheet N 15 Version N 1 of 25 th November 2016

Table of contents I. THE INTERREG 2 SEAS ANTI-FRAUD STRATEGY... 3 A. The Programme policy on anti-fraud... 3 B. A targeted fraud risk mapping... 3 C. ARACHNE... 3 II. MEASURES FOR PROJECTS TO MITIGATE THE RISK OF FRAUD... 4 A. Procedures for reporting the suspicions of fraud... 4 B. Tips and recommendations to mitigate effectively a fraud risk... 4 25/11/2016 2/5

I. The Interreg 2 Seas anti-fraud strategy A. The Programme policy on anti-fraud The MA has a zero tolerance policy to fraud and corruption. The MA and JS have identified the most likely areas for fraud in the Interreg 2 Seas Programme and projects, and have set up robust control systems, measures and procedures in order to follow up on all suspected cases that will be highlighted. With the Interreg 2 Seas Member State representatives, the MA and JS will furthermore seek action on national level in line with the relevant administrative and legal proceedings, wherever the need arises. The MA expects all employees and representatives of the Interreg 2 Seas Programme to be an example in ensuring adherence to legal requirements, regulations, codes of conduct, procedures and practices. Through the Programme anti-fraud policy, the intention is to: - promote a culture which deters fraudulent activity - facilitate the prevention and detection of fraud - develop procedures which will aid in the investigation of fraud and related offences and which will - ensure that such cases are dealt in a timely and appropriate manner. The responsibility for an anti-fraud culture is the joint work of all those involved in the Interreg 2 Seas Programme and projects. B. A targeted fraud risk mapping In the framework of the overall risk mapping and management tools, the Interreg 2 Seas Programme has developed a fraud risks register based on the model proposed by the European Commission in annex to the Guidance Note on Fraud Risk Assessment and Effective and Proportionate Anti-Fraud Measures. The Programme fraud risk mapping tool identifies a set of fraud risks in the following fields: - Project application and selection - Project implementation - Certification and payments - Direct procurements managed by the MA The JS and MA have identified, assessed and scored a set of fraud risks in the four areas mentioned above and have listed the controls to mitigate the risks. Each net risk has been further assessed and scored to identify the need for any additional action plan to ensure better mitigation. C. ARACHNE The use of ARACHNE as a fraud risk assessment tool in the framework of the Interreg 2 Seas Programme is complementary to the other anti-fraud measures and is limited to the following fields: a) For each call for proposals (starting from the third call for proposals), all private entities having a total eligible budget higher than 500.000 (this ceiling is not applicable if the private entity is acting as Lead Partner) will be assessed through ARACHNE in order to identify any risk of financial insolvency. In case of high risk detected by ARACHNE, the JS shall inform the relevant Member States before the MC meeting in order to allow the national representatives to undertake, before MC approval, any necessary investigation and confirm the financial soundness of the applicants concerned. 25/11/2016 3/5

b) For each call for proposals (starting from the third call for proposals), all enterprises self-declared as SME, whose budget is framed under state aid rules applicable to SMEs only, will be assessed through ARACHNE in order to identify any risk of fake declaration (e.g. linked or partner enterprises). In case of high risk detected by ARACHNE, the JS shall inform the relevant Member States before the MC meeting in order to allow the national representatives to undertake, before MC approval, any necessary investigation and confirm the absence of fake declarations for the applicants concerned. c) For all approved projects (starting from 2017 on), all private entities having a total eligible budget higher than 500.000 (this ceiling is not applicable if the private entity is acting as Lead Partner) will be assessed once a year through ARACHNE in order to identify any risk of financial insolvency. In case of high risk detected by ARACHNE, the JS shall inform the relevant Member States in order to allow the national representatives to undertake any necessary investigation and confirm the financial soundness of the beneficiaries concerned. d) For all approved projects (starting from 2017 on), all entities having claimed costs incurred under procurements subject to the provisions of Directive 2004/17/EC or Directive 2004/18/EC or Directive 2014/23/EU will be assessed once a year through ARACHNE in order to identify any risk of conflict of interest between the project beneficiary and the external contractor. In case of high risk detected by ARACHNE, the JS shall inform the relevant Member States in order to allow the national representatives to undertake any necessary investigation and confirm the conflict of interest for the beneficiaries concerned. e) For all approved projects (starting from 2017 on), all enterprises self-declared as SME, whose budget is framed under state aid rules applicable to SMEs only, will be assessed once a year through ARACHNE in order to identify any risk of fake declaration (e.g. linked or partner enterprises). In case of high risk detected by ARACHNE, the JS shall inform the relevant Member States in order to allow the national representatives to undertake any necessary investigation and confirm the absence of fake declarations for the beneficiaries concerned. II. Measures for projects to mitigate the risk of fraud A. Procedures for reporting the suspicions of fraud For First Level Controllers, a specific Programme template is available (see annex 1 of this Fact sheet) to report cases of suspected or established fraud to the Programme. A whistleblowing procedure will also be put in place to allow partners and members of the public to report to the Managing Authority any suspicion of fraud (by sending an email to a dedicated email address available on the Programme web-site). B. Tips and recommendations to mitigate effectively a fraud risk The programme recommends Project Partners and First Level Controllers to pay particular attention to staff costs (e.g. plausibility of staff costs in light of the activities performed, risk of double financing) and public procurement (e.g. potential conflict of interest, splitting of contracts) as they have been identified as the two riskiest areas for irregularities and fraud in Interreg 2 Seas. This is the reason why the First Level Control checklist particularly tackles the risk of irregularities in these areas. The Programme and national authorities as well as the second level auditors may also carry out targeted verifications concerning project partners to identify potential risks of irregularities or fraud. In order to prevent and detect potential fraud in the area of public procurement, Project beneficiaries (Lead and Project Partners) are recommended: - to ensure the proper application of their internal conflict of interest policy (e.g. through conflict of interests declarations, conflict registers, etc.), - to perform checks on companies participating in a tender in particular to prevent conflicts of interest, detect interlinked companies submitting tenders (e.g. checking general websites, online companies registers, etc.) 25/11/2016 4/5

- to have measures in place to detect persistently high or unusual bid data (e.g. bid evaluators that have a knowledge of the marketplace) and verify the plausibility of the price of activities/services (e.g. comparison with similar contracts, online price comparison tools, etc.). - to perform checks on goods and services provided in particular to verify compliance with tender specifications, the prices quoted and the actual delivery of activities/services (e.g. request if needed additional information on staff involved, time spent, etc.). In addition, for all public procurement above the lowest applicable threshold, partners are recommended to implement a robust internal control system, in line with the proportionality principle, to avoid in particular: - irregular split purchases; - unjustified direct awards; - irregular extensions of contract; - irregular amendments of existing contracts; - the leaking of bid data; - that bid specifications are too narrow; - that procurement procedures are not followed. This should involve the internal review of all public procurement procedures above national and EU thresholds. For example, it is recommended that contract awards or amendment of existing contracts are reviewed by a secondary mechanism within the partner organisation other than the selection panel (e.g. senior level personnel within the beneficiary). Another measures could be that evaluation boards are comprised of senior management personnel who are rotated, with some level of randomness in their selection for participation. Similarly, if the partner organisation owns an internal audit function, it is recommended that the relevant service/person regularly reviews the implementation of internal controls over procurement. Moreover, on top of the minimum requirements defined by the applicable European and national public procurement law, the Programme recommends Project Partners to ensure: - a high level of transparency in the award of contracts (e.g. publication of all contract information that is not publicly sensitive); - that the tender process includes a transparent bid opening process and adequate security arrangements for unopened tenders (in order to avoid the manipulation of bid data). The Interreg 2 Seas Programme encourages all Project beneficiaries, contractors, employees, and the public to do their utmost to prevent fraud from happening, to put into place proportionate measures to detect it and to come forward with any suspicion of fraud in relation to this Programme. 25/11/2016 5/5