1. MONEY, FRAUD AND THE POLITICIAN
- CASE STUDY - 1

3. A. PROJECT – infrastructure objective
B. ACTORS – persons or entities involved
C. FRAUD –abusive behavours
D. MONEY – funds affected by fraud

4. A. PROJECT
Rehabilitation works to 2 road bridges affected by the floods from the period
April – August 2005
Project financed by the Programme PHARE CES, sub-component „Measures against the disasters caused by the floods”

5. B. ACTORS
1. POLITICIAN – president of the party county organisation, member in the party central management;
2. AUTHORITY – county council led by the politician;
3. CONSTRUCTOR – politician’s friend;
4. SUBCONTRACTOR 1 – politician’s son-in-law;
5. SUBCONTRACTOR 2 – politician’s relative.

6. - President of the county council - Contractor’s friend
1. POLITICIAN
- President of the county council
- Contractor’s friend
- Subcontractor A’s father- in-law
- Subcontractor B’s relative
2. CONTRACTING AUTHORITY
County Council
Offers’ evaluation commission
Project implementation team
4. SUBCONTRACTOR A
3. CONSTRUCTOR
5. SUBCONTRACTOR B

7. STAGES OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
C. FRAUD
STAGES OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE I – OBTAINMENT OF THE FINANCING APPROVAL
Stage 1 – Submitting the projects
Stage 2 – Evaluation of the projects and concluding the contract /financing agreement
STAGE II – IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT
Stage 1 – Award of the works, supply or services contracts
Stage 2 – Accomplishment of the project’s objectives
Stage 3 – Finalisation of the project – quantifying the indicators
STAGE III – POST-IMPLEMENTATION ASSESSMENT

8. STAGE I – OBTAINMENT OF THE FINANCING APPROVAL
FRAUD
STAGE I – OBTAINMENT OF THE FINANCING APPROVAL
Eligibility condition: The objectives of road infrastructure affected by the floods produced between April – August 2005
Report of direct causality between the floods and the need for financing
The financing request: false statements regarding affecting one of the bridges by the floods between April – August 2005

9. DLAF INVESTIGATIONS
1. There were no documents regarding the damage to the bridge following the floods produced starting with April 2005
2. There were identified documents regarding the damage to the resistance structure of the bridge, drawn up in the year 2004
3. Starting with August 2004 the road traffic was restricted
4. On 07 March 2005 the road and pedestrian traffic were completely forbidden

10. STAGE II – IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT
Stage 1 Organisation and carrying out of the award procedure of the works contract
- Submitting the offers by 9 tenderers and requesting clarifications
- Evaluation of the offers and drawing up the evaluation report by which there was established the successful offer of the tender (other than the offer of the CONTRACTOR)

11. - The illegal and unjustified refusal of the manager of the contracting authority (POLITICIAN) of approving the evaluation report (2nd April)
- The illegal order of establishing a commission for the purpose of verifying the successful tenderer (3rd April)
- Verifications made by infringing the material and territorial competence

12. - Drawing up a second evaluation report containing false statements regarding imposing a minimum term of accomplishment of works of 3 months and maximum 6 months
- Rejecting the offer declared successful on the grounds that the term tendered of 2 and 28 days cannot be assimilated to the minimum term of 3 months
- Accepting the offer of the CONTRACTOR, with a value bigger with approximately EUR

13. - Cancellation of the second evaluation report by the National Council for Solving Appeals (CNSC)
- CNSC cancelled the reasons for rejecting the offers by invoking a minimum term for the execution of works of 3 months as this was not mentioned in the award documentation
- Repeating the process of evaluation of the offers, without taking into account the decision of CNSC

14. - Drawing up a third evaluation report by infringing the decision of CNSC – grounds for absolute nullity of the works contract
- In the third report the successful offer was rejected again on the grounds that it tendered an execution term of 2 months and 28 days, but there was admitted for evaluation an offer in which the execution term was only 2 months
The works contract was concluded with the CONTRACTOR which had an offer with a value approximately EUR bigger than the one illegally rejected

15. - The execution term was entirely neglected after the CONTRACTOR (POLITICIAN’s friend) obtained the contract (the works took longer than 12 months)
- The initial value of the contract was increased by approximately EUR, by falsifying the documents regarding the negotiation procedure and those regarding the execution of the „supplementary” works

16. D. MONEY
1. Illegal obtainment of PHARE funds
= around EUR
(falsely stating that the bridges were affected by floods)
2. Prejudicing the budget of the county
= around EUR
(illegal rejection of a conformable offer)
3. Prejudicing the budget of the county
= around EUR
(unjustified increase of the contract value)

17. The prosecutors disposed sending to trial 11 persons
DLAF notified the prosecutors, who continued the investigations and proved the following:
THE CONTRACTOR gave up part of the works and then made payments to the two subcontractors close to the POLITICIAN – son-in-law and a relative
THE CONTRACTOR transferred to the POLITICIAN a commercial space of 300 sm in the amount of around EUR
The prosecutors disposed sending to trial 11 persons
THE POLITICIAN was sentenced to 8 years of prison

19. Fight against Fraud Department - DLAF
Constantin LICA
Counsellor
Control Directorate
Fight against Fraud Department - DLAF