Home

Furthermore, the investigators made efforts to locate the three companies, and were unsuccessful. The investigators could not find anyone in Bamako who was able to confirm that these companies ever existed. The investigators visited the Tribunal de commerce in Bamako and could not find any record of the existence of these companies there, either. Therefore, says the Respondent, the companies never existed and the quotations are forged to suggest that a fair procurement process took place. 25. (...) It is also interesting to note that the company which was awarded the contract, Sahel Transit, was not traceable either, yet it does not seem to be disputed that the company did exist, and did carry out its part of the contracts it was awarded. 28.

He indicated that the reason for leaving that company was due to “chômage technique” (“redundancy”). 44. In addition, the Applicant indicated in his PHP that he was “coordinateur des activités” of the company from “January 2002 to March 2005”. Yet, in his pleadings he indicated he was the owner since 2003 and he signed a contract on behalf of his company in 2009. (...) Nowhere in the Applicant’s PHP is it mentioned that he was the owner of a company from 2003 to 2009. Accordingly, the Administration could not have been put on notice that he owned a private company.

… In August 2001 the Applicant’s wife established a company called BG Trading. The company remained in her name until her death in July 2004 when the Applicant, along with his two children, inherited a 95% share in the company (...) Varnero was also a company which carried out contractual work for the United Nations and due to his role as Chief of the Facilities Management Section the Applicant had dealt with this company. (...) This company was also carrying out work on United Nations contracts.

In August 2001 the Applicant’s wife established a company called BG Trading. The company remained in her name until her death in July 2004 when the Applicant, along with his two children, inherited a 95% share in the company. 4. (...) This company was also carrying out work on United Nations contracts. (...) At the time of the hearing the company was still in existence. He never received any remuneration from that company and that company never did business with ECA19. 75.

As charged in the criminal Information filed today, in 2000, YAKOVLEV, while working as a procurement officer at the United Nations, established the company Moxyco, Ltd. to facilitate the illicit and secret payment of money to him by foreign companies seeking to secure contracts to provide goods and services to the United Nations. (...) UNDT/2014/040 Page 3 of 14 Thereafter, YAKOVLEV received wire transfers sent to bank accounts in 2 Antigua and Switzerland from foreign companies in exchange for providing information to companies about United Nations contracts that were up for bid and for assisting companies to obtain United Nations contracts. The Information charges that YAKOVLEV received wire transfers from, among others: “foreign company 1”, for providing that company with information from the United Nations regarding a bid for contracts related to the airlifting of United Nations supplies to foreign countries; and “foreign company 2” and “foreign company 3” in return for his assistance in helping those companies obtain contracts with other companies that engaged in business with the United Nations.

In addition, the company stated that the Applicant had invited one of its officials to his home to inform him that the company was to be blacklisted for having accepted internal information on MONUC’s bidding exercises. (...) (“Matina”), a Kinshasa company that provided catering services to MONUC’s four cafeterias, which bidding process was handled by the Applicant. (...) It was noted that, although some twenty-five companies received the Request for Proposal (RFP), only Matina and another company took part in the site visit where key requirements of the contract were to be discussed.

Specifically, she failed to disclose that [Company 1, LLC] was owned by her relatives and that Ms. (...) Finally, although OAIS found that [the Applicant’s] mother held shares in [Company 2], the investigation did not find any evidence that [Company 2] was engaged by UNFPA Mongolia as a supplier. (...) She concedes that she should have exercised utmost care when completing the financial disclosure forms because to her knowledge [Company 1, LLC] was owned by her father-in-law and not by her husband, who was never involved in the management of the company; g.

It was alleged that both applicants accepted hospitality from a representative of a vendor company and that such hospitality was lavish and inappropriate. (...) Although there was no finding that the applicants had conferred any benefits on the two vendor companies or any other company, the key issue is whether there Case No. (...) It was the vendors’ representative’s evidence that one of the applicants had assisted his company subsequently by drafting correspondence.

Ganbold: a) held a financial interest in, or was associated with, the management of the building/premises rented; b) was actively associated with Company 1, Company 2, Ms. N. (her mother) and/or Ms. (...) Ganbold: (i) had failed to disclose to the proper management level that her spouse and mother were actively associated with Company 1 and Ms. N., who were UNFPA suppliers of rental space that had received USD 22,178.23 in UNFPA payments; (ii) had failed to disclose that Company 1 was owned by her relatives; (iii) had failed, in her capacity as both Administrative Finance Associate and Operations Manager, to recuse herself from procurement transactions with Company 1 and Ms. (...) OAIS concluded there was no substantiation to any claims pertaining to Company 2. 5. The Director, Division for Human Resources (DHR), sent Ms.

In the context of the investigations the PTF looked into the relationship between the Procurement Section, Kohli and the companies associated with him and his father (TCIL and Thunderbird). (...) The Judge has indicated repeatedly during this case that there was no evidence that Cabrera had conferred any benefits on the two vendor companies or any other company. 16. Cabrera alleges that the UNDT erred on a question of law in determining that his summary dismissal was a proportionate sanction. (...) The Secretary-General argues that the UNDT did not err in finding that Kohli’s motive in providing “lavish hospitality” to Cabrera was to gain commercial advantage for the companies he represented. In his testimony, Kohli confirmed he supplied Bahel with benefits to secure an advantage for the companies that he represented in the United Nations procurement process.