Key fingerprint 9EF0 C41A FBA5 64AA 650A 0259 9C6D CD17 283E 454C

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
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=5a6T
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

		

Contact

If you need help using Tor you can contact WikiLeaks for assistance in setting it up using our simple webchat available at: https://wikileaks.org/talk

If you can use Tor, but need to contact WikiLeaks for other reasons use our secured webchat available at http://wlchatc3pjwpli5r.onion

We recommend contacting us over Tor if you can.

Tor

Tor is an encrypted anonymising network that makes it harder to intercept internet communications, or see where communications are coming from or going to.

In order to use the WikiLeaks public submission system as detailed above you can download the Tor Browser Bundle, which is a Firefox-like browser available for Windows, Mac OS X and GNU/Linux and pre-configured to connect using the anonymising system Tor.

Tails

If you are at high risk and you have the capacity to do so, you can also access the submission system through a secure operating system called Tails. Tails is an operating system launched from a USB stick or a DVD that aim to leaves no traces when the computer is shut down after use and automatically routes your internet traffic through Tor. Tails will require you to have either a USB stick or a DVD at least 4GB big and a laptop or desktop computer.

Tips

Our submission system works hard to preserve your anonymity, but we recommend you also take some of your own precautions. Please review these basic guidelines.

1. Contact us if you have specific problems

If you have a very large submission, or a submission with a complex format, or are a high-risk source, please contact us. In our experience it is always possible to find a custom solution for even the most seemingly difficult situations.

2. What computer to use

If the computer you are uploading from could subsequently be audited in an investigation, consider using a computer that is not easily tied to you. Technical users can also use Tails to help ensure you do not leave any records of your submission on the computer.

3. Do not talk about your submission to others

If you have any issues talk to WikiLeaks. We are the global experts in source protection – it is a complex field. Even those who mean well often do not have the experience or expertise to advise properly. This includes other media organisations.

After

1. Do not talk about your submission to others

If you have any issues talk to WikiLeaks. We are the global experts in source protection – it is a complex field. Even those who mean well often do not have the experience or expertise to advise properly. This includes other media organisations.

2. Act normal

If you are a high-risk source, avoid saying anything or doing anything after submitting which might promote suspicion. In particular, you should try to stick to your normal routine and behaviour.

3. Remove traces of your submission

If you are a high-risk source and the computer you prepared your submission on, or uploaded it from, could subsequently be audited in an investigation, we recommend that you format and dispose of the computer hard drive and any other storage media you used.

In particular, hard drives retain data after formatting which may be visible to a digital forensics team and flash media (USB sticks, memory cards and SSD drives) retain data even after a secure erasure. If you used flash media to store sensitive data, it is important to destroy the media.

If you do this and are a high-risk source you should make sure there are no traces of the clean-up, since such traces themselves may draw suspicion.

4. If you face legal action

If a legal action is brought against you as a result of your submission, there are organisations that may help you. The Courage Foundation is an international organisation dedicated to the protection of journalistic sources. You can find more details at https://www.couragefound.org.

WikiLeaks publishes documents of political or historical importance that are censored or otherwise suppressed. We specialise in strategic global publishing and large archives.

The following is the address of our secure site where you can anonymously upload your documents to WikiLeaks editors. You can only access this submissions system through Tor. (See our Tor tab for more information.) We also advise you to read our tips for sources before submitting.

http://ibfckmpsmylhbfovflajicjgldsqpc75k5w454irzwlh7qifgglncbad.onion

If you cannot use Tor, or your submission is very large, or you have specific requirements, WikiLeaks provides several alternative methods. Contact us to discuss how to proceed.


United Nations Procurement Task Force: Interim Report on MONUC Procurement and Five UN Procurement Officials (PTF-R011-07), 5 Jul 2007

From WikiLeaks

Jump to: navigation, search

Donate to WikiLeaks

Unless otherwise specified, the document described here:

  • Was first publicly revealed by WikiLeaks working with our source.
  • Was classified, confidential, censored or otherwise withheld from the public before release.
  • Is of political, diplomatic, ethical or historical significance.

Any questions about this document's veracity are noted.

The summary is approved by the editorial board.

See here for a detailed explanation of the information on this page.

If you have similar or updated material, see our submission instructions.

Contact us

Press inquiries

Follow updates

Release date
January 12, 2009

Summary

United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (UN OIOS) 5 Jul 2007 report titled "Interim Report on MONUC Procurement and Five UN Procurement Officials [PTF-R011-07]" relating to the Procurement Task Force. The report runs to 99 printed pages.

Note
Verified by Sunshine Press editorial board

Download

File | Torrent | Magnet

Further information

Context
International organization
United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services
Authored on
July 5, 2007
File size in bytes
5596115
File type information
PDF
Cryptographic identity
SHA256 2dfba5b392a80a21a4b99eaee0757cd6156a7458ea31232bed0ca8629e9d5bc5


Simple text version follows

        United Nations                               Nations Unies

     OFFICE OF INTERNAL OVERSIGHT SERVICES
           PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
            This Report is protected under the provisions of
           ST/SGB/273, paragraph 18, of 7 September 1994

        INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC
          PROCUREMENT AND FIVE
              UNITED NATIONS
          PROCUREMENT OFFICIALS

                      Report no. PTF-R011/07

                          Case no. PTF/021/07



This Investigation Report of the Procurement Task Force of the United Nations
Office of Internal Oversight Services is provided upon your request pursuant to
paragraph 1(c) of General Assembly resolution A/RES/59/272. The Report has
been redacted in part pursuant to paragraph 2 of this resolution to protect
confidential and sensitive information. OIOS' transmission of this Report does
not constitute its publication. OIOS does not bear any responsibility for any
further dissemination of the Report.




                                5 July 2007


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


                                                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.        INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1
II.       ALLEGATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 1
III.      APPLICABLE UNITED NATIONS STAFF REGULATIONS AND RULES ............................ 2
IV.       RELEVANT CONCEPTS OF CRIMINAL LAW.......................................................................... 5
V.        METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 5
VI.       DUE PROCESS COMPLIANCE..................................................................................................... 6
VII. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 7
VIII. SUBJECT 1 ........................................................................................................................................ 9
       A.    ALLEGATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 9
       B.    PROFESSIONAL AND PERSONAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................ 11
       C.    UNDOF ......................................................................................................................................... 12
       D.    UNAMIR....................................................................................................................................... 14
       E.    MONUC ........................................................................................................................................ 16
             1. Etablissement Ekima ............................................................................................................... 18
             2. Soci�t� Matina Sprl. and Catering Contracts ......................................................................... 23
                    a.     Contract CON/MON/03/02 ............................................................................................................. 24
                    b.     Contract CON/MON/05/002 ........................................................................................................... 26
                    c.     Tender RFP TEN/MON/06-066....................................................................................................... 27
             3.     AVC Construct ........................................................................................................................ 33
             4.     Soci�t� de Transport de Bens Sprl. ......................................................................................... 38
             5.     Payments to Vendors Described as Repayment of "Loans" ................................................... 40
                    a.     UAC Sprl. ........................................................................................................................................ 40
                    b.     Panache Sprl. .................................................................................................................................. 41
             6.     Transport Fluvial et Commerce .............................................................................................. 42
IX.       MONUC BOAT CONTRACTS: PAYMENTS TO SUBJECT 2, SUBJECT 3, AND SUBJECT
          4 ......................................................................................................................................................... 42
       A. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 42
       B. ALLEGATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 43
       C. MAISON MUKOIE FILS PAYMENTS TO SUBJECT 2........................................................................ 43
          1. Personal and Professional Background of Subject 2 .............................................................. 45
          2. Investigative details................................................................................................................. 46
       D. TFCE PAYMENTS TO SUBJECT 3, SUBJECT 4, AND SUBJECT 1 .................................................... 50
          1. Professional and Personal Background of Subject 3.............................................................. 52
          2. Professional and Personal Background of Subject 4.............................................................. 52
          3. Procurement Responsibilities.................................................................................................. 53
          4. Investigative Details................................................................................................................ 54
       E. OTHER ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SUBJECT 3 AND SUBJECT 4 ....................................................... 61
       F. OTHER COMPANIES ....................................................................................................................... 63
          1. Transfluco ............................................................................................................................... 63
          2. Domaine de la Palmeraie ....................................................................................................... 65
X.        SUBJECT 5 ...................................................................................................................................... 67
       A. PROFESSIONAL AND PERSONAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................... 67
       B. ALLEGATION ................................................................................................................................. 67
       C. INVESTIGATIVE DETAILS: LOAN FROM UAC............................................................................... 67
XI.       FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................ 69


                                                                                  i


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

     A. SUBJECT 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 69
        1. Findings .................................................................................................................................. 69
        2. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 72
     B. SUBJECT 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 73
        1. Findings .................................................................................................................................. 73
        2. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 74
     C. SUBJECT 3 AND SUBJECT 4 ............................................................................................................ 75
        1. Findings .................................................................................................................................. 75
        2. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 76
     D. SUBJECT 5 ...................................................................................................................................... 77
        1. Findings .................................................................................................................................. 77
        2. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 77
     E. MONUC PROCUREMENT.............................................................................................................. 78
XII. RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................. 78
     A.    RECOMMENDATION PTF-R011/07/1 ............................................................................................ 78
     B.    RECOMMENDATION PTF-R011/07/2 ............................................................................................ 79
     C.    RECOMMENDATION PTF-R011/07/3 ............................................................................................ 79
     D.    RECOMMENDATION PTF-R011/07/4 ............................................................................................ 79
     E.    RECOMMENDATION PTF-R011/07/5 ............................................................................................ 79
     F.    RECOMMENDATION PTF-R011/07/6 ............................................................................................ 79
     G.    RECOMMENDATION PTF-R011/07/7 ............................................................................................ 80
     H.    RECOMMENDATION PTF-R011/07/8 ............................................................................................ 80
     I.    RECOMMENDATION PTF-R011/07/9 ............................................................................................ 80
     J.    RECOMMENDATION PTF-R011/07/10 .......................................................................................... 80
     K.    RECOMMENDATION PTF-R011/07/11 .......................................................................................... 80
ANNEX A: SUBJECT 1 LETTER TO THE TASK FORCE (28 JUNE 2007) ..................................... 81
ANNEX B: SUBJECT 2 LETTER TO THE TASK FORCE (28 JUNE 2007) ..................................... 84
ANNEX C: SUBJECT 2 LETTER TO THE TASK FORCE (28 JUNE 2007) ..................................... 88
ANNEX D: SUBJECT 4 LETTER TO THE TASK FORCE (29 JUNE 2007) ..................................... 92
ANNEX E: SUBJECT 5 LETTER TO THE TASK FORCE (3 JULY 2007) ....................................... 95




                                                                        ii


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
      INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
      STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
      ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________



I.    INTRODUCTION
      1.      The following report is the result of an investigation conducted between February
      2007 and June 2007 by the Procurement Task Force ("the Task Force") of the Office of
      Internal Oversight Services ("OIOS"). The Task Force is an ad hoc investigative unit
      created on 12 January 2006 to address all procurement matters referred to OIOS. The
      creation of the Task Force was the result of perceived problems in procurement identified
      by the Independent Inquiry Committee into the Oil for Food Programme, and the arrest
      and conviction of United Nations Procurement Officer Alexander Yakovlev.
      2.      Under its Terms of Reference, the Task Force operates as part of OIOS, and
      reports directly to the Under-Secretary-General of OIOS. The remit of the Task Force is
      to investigate all procurement cases, including all matters involving procurement bidding
      exercises, procurement staff and vendors doing business with the United Nations.
      3.      Since its inception, more than 350 matters involving numerous procurement cases
      in various missions and the United Nations Headquarters have been referred to the Task
      Force. Having spent the majority of its time in 2006 focusing upon the investigations of
      the eight staff members placed upon special leave with pay in January 2006, the Task
      Force turned its attention in 2007 more fully to procurement activities in the
      peacekeeping missions and offices away from the United Nations Headquarters. The
      Task Force has a number of active investigations in a number of peacekeeping missions,
      based upon referrals from other investigative agencies, staff members, and the analysis of
      previously closed cases in which re-investigation was warranted.
      4.     One of the major focuses of Task Force's investigations involves the United
      Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo ("MONUC"). Forty-eight
      individual matters involving sixteen current and former United Nations staff members,
      numerous procurement exercises and a multitude of international and national United
      Nations contractors have been referred to the Task Force concerning this Mission.

II.   ALLEGATIONS
      5.     This Interim Report focuses on five current staff members at MONUC's
      Procurement Section ("the Procurement Section"):
              (i)     Subject 1, procurement assistant: six individual matters of alleged corrupt
      activities and other criminal practices by Subject 1 have been referred to the Task Force.
      In the course of the investigation, the Task Force obtained additional information from
      several individuals, which led to a further expansion of the investigation. As some of the
      matters under investigation related to previous allegations against Subject 1 from other
      missions, analysis and re-investigation of previously closed cases pertaining to Subject 1
      was warranted;
              (ii)   This report further addresses several allegations regarding corrupt
      practices by procurement officer Subject 2, procurement officer Subject 4, procurement
      assistant Subject 3, and procurement assistant Subject 5. Some of the allegations had



                                                                                                          PAGE 1


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
    INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
    STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


    been previously referred to OIOS; other matters were brought to the attention of the Task
    Force during the investigation.
    6.      The cases investigated span a significant period of time, as some of the matters
    date back to 1986. The purpose of this Interim Report is to inform the Organisation of
    these five staff members' illegal conduct that resulted in substantial financial losses to the
    Organisation as well as harm to the reputation of MONUC and the Organisation, as well
    as the pervasive culture of corruption in the Procurement Section generally.
    7.     Other matters of alleged corrupt practices of MONUC staff members in the
    Procurement Section and in other departments have been referred to the Task Force.
    These matters are subjects of other ongoing Task Force investigations and will be
    addressed in a further report.

III. APPLICABLE UNITED NATIONS STAFF
     REGULATIONS AND RULES
    8.     The following provisions of the Staff Regulations of the United Nations ("the
    Staff Regulations") are relevant:1
            (i)    Regulation 1.2(b): "Staff members shall uphold the highest standards of
    efficiency, competence and integrity. The concept of integrity includes, but is not limited
    to, probity, impartiality, fairness, honesty and truthfulness in all matters affecting their
    work and status."2
            (ii)     Regulation 1.2(e): "By accepting appointment, staff members pledge
    themselves to discharge their functions and regulate their conduct with the interests of the
    Organization only in view. Loyalty to the aims, principles and purposes of the United
    Nations, as set forth in its Charter, is a fundamental obligation of all staff members by
    virtue of their status as international civil servants."3
           (iii) Regulation 1.2(f): "[Staff members] shall conduct themselves at all times
    in a manner befitting their status as international civil servants and shall not engage in
    any activity that is incompatible with the proper discharge of the duties with the United
    Nations. They shall avoid any action, and, in particular, any kind of public
    pronouncement that may adversely reflect on their status, or on the integrity,
    independence and impartiality that are required by that status."4



    1
      ST/SGB/2007/4 (1 January 2007) (containing revised edition of the Staff Regulations). Throughout this
    Report, references to earlier editions of the Staff Regulations will be made where applicable.
    2
      ST/SGB/2007/4, reg. 1.2(b) (1 January 2007). This is a long-standing provision of the Staff Regulations.
    See, e.g., ST/SGB/1999/5, reg. 1.2(b) (3 June 1999).
    3
      ST/SGB/2007/4, reg. 1.2(e) (1 January 2007). This is a long-standing provision of the Staff Regulations.
    See, e.g., ST/SGB/1999/5, reg. 1.2(e) (3 June 1999).
    4
      ST/SGB/2007/4, reg. 1.2(f) (1 January 2007). This is a long-standing provision of the Staff Regulations.
    See, e.g., ST/SGB/1999/5, reg. 1.2(f) (3 June 1999).


                                                                                                        PAGE 2


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


        (iv)    Regulation 1.2(g): "Staff members shall not use their office or knowledge
gained from their official functions for private gain, financial or otherwise, or for the
private gain of any third party, including family, friends and those they favour."5
        (v)     Regulation 1.2(i): "Staff members shall exercise the utmost discretion
with regard to all matters of official business. They shall not communicate to any
Government, entity, person or any other source any information known to them by reason
of their official position that they know or ought to have known has not been made
public, except as appropriate in the normal course of their duties or by authorization of
the Secretary-General."6
       (vi)    Regulation 1.2(l): "No staff member shall accept any honour, decoration,
favour, gift or remuneration from any non-governmental source without first obtaining
the approval of the Secretary-General."7
9.      The following provision of the Staff Rules of the United Nations is relevant:
        (i)     Rule 112.3: "Any staff member may be required to reimburse the United
Nations either partially or in full for any financial loss suffered by the United Nations as a
result of the staff member's negligence or of his or her having violated any regulation,
rule or administrative instruction."8
10.   The following provisions of the Financial Rules and Regulations of the United
Nations are relevant:
       (i)     Regulation 5.12: "The following general principles shall be given due
consideration when exercising the procurement functions of the United Nations:
                (a) Best value for money;
                (b) Fairness, integrity and transparency;
                (c) Effective international competition;
                (d) The interest of the United Nations."9
        (ii)  Rule 105.14: "[P]rocurement contracts shall be awarded on the basis of
effective competition."10
11.    The following provisions of the United Nations Procurement Manual are
relevant:11

5
  ST/SGB/2007/4, reg. 1.2(g) (1 January 2007). This is a long-standing provision of the Staff Regulations.
See, e.g., ST/SGB/1999/5, reg. 1.2(g) (3 June 1999).
6
  ST/SGB/2007/4, reg. 1.2(i) (1 January 2007). This is a long-standing provision of the Staff Regulations.
See, e.g., ST/SGB/1999/5, reg. 1.2(l) (3 June 1999).
7
  ST/SGB/2007/4, reg. 1.2(l) (1 January 2007). This is a long-standing provision of the Staff Regulations.
See, e.g., ST/SGB/1999/5, reg. 1.2(l) (3 June 1999).
8
  ST/SGB/2005/1 (1 January 2005).
9
  ST/SGB/2003/07, reg. 5.12 (9 May 2003). See also ST/SGB/Financial Rules/1/Rev. 3, rule 110.21
(March 1985).
10
   ST/SGB/2003/07, rule 105.14 (9 May 2003). See also ST/SGB/Financial Rules/1/Rev. 3, rule 110.21
(March 1985)


                                                                                                    PAGE 3


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


       (i)   Section 4.1.5(4)(a): "UN staff shall not allow any Vendor(s) access to
information on a particular acquisition before such information is available to the
business community at large."12
        (ii)    Section 4.2(1): "It is of overriding importance that the staff member
acting in an official procurement capacity should not be placed in a position where their
actions may constitute or could be reasonably perceived as reflecting favourable
treatment to an individual or entity by accepting offers or gifts and hospitality or other
similar considerations."13
       (iii) Section 4.2(2): "It is inconsistent that a Procurement Officer . . . accepts
any gift from any outside source regardless of the value and regardless of whether the
outside source is or is not soliciting business with the United Nations. All staff members
involved in procurement shall decline offers of gifts."14
        (iv)    Section 4.3(2)(a): "`Bribery' means the act of unduly offering, giving,
receiving or soliciting anything of value to influence the process of procuring goods or
services, or executing contracts."15
       (v)     Section 4.3(3)(b): "The UN . . . [w]ill declare a firm ineligible, either
indefinitely or for a stated period of time, to become a UN registered Vendor if it at any
time determines that the firm has engaged in corrupt practices in competing for or in
executing a UN Contract."16
       (vi)   Section 4.3(3)(c): "The UN . . . [w]ill cancel or terminate a contract if it
determines that a Vendor has engaged in corrupt practices in competing for or in
executing a UN Contract."17
       (vii) Section 7.12.2(1)(a): "The criteria for suspension or removal from the
Vendor Database . . . [includes] [f]ailure to perform in accordance with the terms and
conditions of one or more contract[s] . . . and [a]busive, unethical or unprofessional
conduct, including corrupt practices and submission of false information."18


11
   United Nations Procurement Manual, Rev. 3 (August 2006) (hereinafter "2006 Procurement Manual");
United Nations Procurement Manual Rev. 2 (January 2004) (hereinafter "2004 Procurement Manual").
12
   2006 Procurement Manual, sec. 4.1.5(4)(a); 2004 Procurement Manual, sec. 4.1.5(4)(a); 1998
Procurement Manual, sec. 7.06.01.
13
   2006 Procurement Manual, sec. 4.2(1); 2004 Procurement Manual, sec. 4.2.1(1); 1998 Procurement
Manual, secs. 3.04.05, 7.06.01, 8.03.04.
14
   2006 Procurement Manual, sec. 4.2(2); 2004 Procurement Manual, sec. 4.2.1(2); 1998 Procurement
Manual, secs. 3.04.05, 8.03.04.
15
   2006 Procurement Manual, sec. 4.3(2)(a); 2004 Procurement Manual, sec. 4.2.5(2)(i); 1998 Procurement
Manual, secs. 5.12.01�5.12.02.
16
   2006 Procurement Manual, sec. 4.3(3)(b); 2004 Procurement Manual, sec. 4.2.5(3)(ii); 1998 Procurement
Manual, secs. 5.12.01�5.12.02.
17
   2006 Procurement Manual, sec. 4.3(3)(c); 2004 Procurement Manual, sec. 4.2.5(3)(iii); 1998
Procurement Manual, secs. 5.12.01�5.12.02.
18
   2006 Procurement Manual, sec. 7.12.2(1)(a); 2004 Procurement Manual, sec. 7.12.2(1)(a)(iv); 1998
Procurement Manual, secs. 5.12.01�5.12.02.


                                                                                                    PAGE 4


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
     INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
     STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
     ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


     12.   The following provisions of the United Nations General Conditions of
     Contract are relevant:
             (i)     Article 2.0: "The Contractor shall refrain from any action that may
     adversely affect the United Nations and shall fulfill its commitments with the fullest
     regard to the interests of the United Nations."19
             (ii)    Article 6.0: "The Contractor warrants that no official of the United
     Nations has received or will be offered by the Contractor any direct or indirect benefit
     arising from this Contract or the award thereof. The Contractor agrees that breach of this
     provision is a breach of an essential term of this Contract."20

IV. RELEVANT CONCEPTS OF CRIMINAL LAW
     13.    Some of the well-established concepts of common law are applicable to this
     Interim Report, including:
             (i)     Bribery: Commonly, bribery is defined as an act of a public official to
     corruptly solicit, demand, accept or agree to accept anything of value from any person, in
     return for being influenced in the performance of any official act or being induced to do
     or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official.
             (ii)    Conspiracy: Conspiracy is an agreement to do an unlawful act. It is a
     mutual understanding, either spoken or unspoken, between two or more people to
     cooperate with each other to accomplish an unlawful act. In this case, it is the agreement
     to engage in a scheme to improperly obtain sums of money under contracts with the
     United Nations not properly due and owing to them, and to achieve contracts through
     corrupt means, including bribery, the solicitation and offer of kickbacks, and the payment
     of gratuities; and
     14.    If any evidence of bribery or fraud or other criminal offense is revealed during the
     course of the Task Force's investigations, a referral to the appropriate prosecutorial
     agency will be recommended.

V.   METHODOLOGY
     15.    Investigators interviewed a significant number of United Nations staff members,
     both current and former procurement staff at MONUC and other senior management
     personnel, as well as United Nations staff at the Headquarters. Interviews were also
     conducted with local Congolese and international vendors doing business with MONUC.

     19
        2006 Procurement Manual, United Nations General Conditions of Contract, art. 2.0. This is a long-
     standing provision of the General Conditions of Contract. See, e.g., United Nations Procurement Manual,
     United Nations General Conditions of Contract, art. 2.0 (31 March 1998) (hereinafter "1998 Procurement
     Manual").
     20
        2006 Procurement Manual, United Nations General Conditions of Contract, art. 6.0. This is a long-
     standing provision of the General Conditions of Contract. See, e.g., 1998 Procurement Manual, United
     Nations General Conditions of Contract, art. 6.0.


                                                                                                         PAGE 5


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
    INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
    STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


    A written record of conversation was prepared after each such meeting with the
    interviewee, and thereafter all interviewed staff members were invited to review the
    document for accuracy, propose additions, deletions and amendments, and sign it.
    16.    Investigators examined voluminous forensic data, electronic media, and hard-
    copy documents. The records collected by the Task Force included:
             (i)     Procurement files from 2001 to the present, including vendor registration
    files, requisitions, bids, presentations to the Local Committee on Contracts ("LCC") and
    the Headquarters Committee on Contracts ("HCC"), receiving and inspection reports,
    payment instructions, and related correspondence of the purchase orders and contracts
    involved;
            (ii)     Electronic evidence, including telephone records, hard drives and emails;
            (iii)    Personnel files; and
            (iv)     Correspondence files.
    17.     The Task Force made significant efforts to locate and obtain all relevant files.
    However, the investigators faced a number of challenges including the fact that certain
    procurement files were found not only to be incomplete but incomprehensible.
    Furthermore, some of the allegations date back to 1986, which imposed serious
    difficulties in finding documents and witnesses able to fully recall the details of the
    events under investigation. In many cases documents were not found in files, rather loose
    papers and miscellaneous documents were gathered and provided to the Task Force. In
    these instances, often critical documents were absent, including the contracts themselves
    and technical and financial evaluations.
    18.     The Task Force has also sought cooperation from vendors, their representatives,
    and principals. As the Task Force has limited coercive powers and does not have the
    ability to issue subpoenas, lack of assistance from third parties can impose serious
    impediments to the investigations. Although the Task Force was able to obtain crucial
    information from some United Nations vendors and other third parties on a number of
    occasions, many local vendors refused to fully cooperate and disclose information to the
    investigators.

VI. DUE PROCESS COMPLIANCE
    19.     Due process in the investigative phase requires that staff be treated "fairly," and
    that prior to reporting OIOS provide notice to the staff member of its intention to report,
    the scope of allegations against the staff member; and provide the staff member with an
    opportunity to comment and present information and evidence.
    20.    All five staff members were fully informed of the allegations and provided with
    relevant evidence, where applicable. The Task Force interviewed Subject 1 on 27
    February and 16 May 2007; Subject 3 on 10 and 18 May 2007; Subject 2 on 21, 26, and
    27 February 2007 and 15 May 2007; Subject 5 on 10 May 2007; and Subject 4 on 27
    February 2007, as well as 11 and 17 May 2007. During these interviews, each subject


                                                                                                        PAGE 6


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
    INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
    STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


    was provided with ample opportunities to present relevant documents and information to
    the Task Force. All subjects addressed in this Interim Report reviewed and signed the
    records of interviews with the Task Force.
    21.    On the 19 and 20 June 2007, the Task Force provided each subject with an
    adverse finding letter, informing them that as a result of the Task Force's investigation,
    evidence was gathered that the staff member was in violation of the Staff Regulations and
    Staff Rules, and that these staff members committed corrupt acts through bribery in
    connection with the United Nations procurement exercises and in their interaction with
    various vendors. On 22 June 2007, Subject 4, Subject 2, and Subject 1 requested
    documentation regarding the Task Force's findings. Subject 3 requested documentation
    on 25 June 2007, and Subject 5 filed his request on 27 June 2007. Subject 4, Subject 2,
    Subject 1, and Subject 3 were provided with the opportunity to review their records of
    conversation and any documents that could be disclosed on 25 June 2007, and Subject 5
    was provided with relevant documents on 28 June 2007.
    22.    Each staff member was provided with the opportunity to comment on this
    information and provide any additional documents and evidence to the Task Force by 29
    June 2007. The Task Force informed the staff member that this information would be
    considered in its final recommendations.

VII. BACKGROUND
    23.     MONUC was established on 30 November 1999 by Resolution 1279 of the
    United Nations Security Council to monitor the Lusaka Ceasefire agreement of the
    Second Congo war.21 On 24 February 2000, the Council expanded the mission's
    mandate and size. With a budget exceeding one billion United States dollars, MONUC is
    the largest and most expensive mission in the Department of Peace Keeping Operations
    ("DPKO").22
    24.     With forty-two authorized posts, MONUC's Procurement Section is one of the
    largest of the Organisation's field procurement sections.23 At the time of the
    investigation only thirty of the forty-two posts were filled.24 The section is currently
    composed of five units, each of them headed by a supervisor at the P-3 level.25 From
    July 2003 to May 2007 alone, purchase orders at a total value of over US$740 million
    have been issued to national and international vendors by the Procurement Section.26




    21
       S/RES/1279 (30 November 1999).
    22
       United Nations DPKO, "MONUC," http://www.un.org/depts/dpko/missions/monuc/.
    23
       Subject 2 interview (21 February 2007). On 27 June 2007, the Task Force confirmed the number of
    authorized posts with Ms. Vevine Stamp, the newly appointed Chief Procurement Officer.
    24
       Subject 2 interview (21 February 2007).
    25
       Id.
    26
       MONUC Procurement Purchase Orders (undated) (provided to the Task Force on 16 May 2007 by
    Magdalene Venn, MONUC's procurement official).


                                                                                                        PAGE 7


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




 Figure: MONUC Purchase Orders (July 2003 to May 2007)

25.     Since the inception of the mission, the Procurement Section has been headed by
six different Chief Procurement Officers ("CPO") and Officers in Charge ("OIC").
26.     The first CPO, Staff Member 1, was appointed in April 2000 and remained in this
position until he retired from the Organisation in November 2002.27 Prior to his
assignment with MONUC, he headed three procurement departments for the United
Nations Operations in Somalia ("UNOSOM"), the United Nations Interim Force in
Lebanon ("UNIFIL"), and the United Nations Protection Force in Croatia
("UNPROFOR"). According to Staff Member 1, the Procurement Section was staffed
with only two procurement officials and was in poor condition when he arrived at the
mission. Vendors had been hired without proper procurement exercises and many
payments were outstanding. Although two additional staff members were hired, the
situation did not improve as neither of the additional staff members had experience in
procurement.28
27.    After Staff Member 1's departure, Ms. Patricia Parsons temporarily served as OIC
of the Procurement Section until Ms. Judith Shane took over as the new CPO in June
2003.29 Prior to her assignment to MONUC, Ms. Shane worked for thirteen years in
procurement with the U.S. Agency for International Development ("USAID"). Ms.
Shane further had ten years of experience in procurement at various United Nations
missions.30 According to Staff Member 2, MONUC Procurement was considered the
worst department in the mission and morale amongst staff members was very low.
Although some improvements were achieved during her tenure, procurement still had a


27
   Staff Member 1 interview (17 April 2007).
28
   Id.
29
   Subject 2 interview (21 February 2007).
30
   Staff Member 2 interview (7 March 2007).


                                                                                                    PAGE 8


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
     INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
     STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
     ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


     bad reputation when she was transferred to the United Nations Stabilization Mission in
     Haiti ("MINUSTAH") in June 2004.31
     28.     Ms. Shane was succeeded by Staff Member 3, who served as CPO for one year
     until August 2005 when he retired from the Organisation. Like his predecessors, Staff
     Member 3 described the situation in procurement as highly disorganized as managerial
     structures were lacking and procurement officers were working on their own without
     overall supervision or guidance.32
     29.     Staff Member 4, who was assigned to MONUC "to clean up the mission," took
     over as OIC of the Procurement Section after Mr. Buxey's retirement. She remained in
     that position until October 2006, when she was transferred to the United Nations Mission
     in Sudan ("UNMIS").33
     30.    Since October 2006, Subject 2, a procurement officer at the P-4 level became the
     OIC of the Procurement Section.34 The arrival of Ms. Vevine Stamp as new CPO was
     scheduled for sometime in May 2007, shortly after the current investigations were
     completed.
     31.    While there was a high turnover and a lack of continuity at the managerial level,
     there was little rotation or change within the professional and general staff level in
     MONUC. All of the individuals under investigation have been at MONUC for more than
     four years with one procurement assistant even serving at the mission since March 2000.
     32.     The first concerns about irregularities not only in the Procurement Section but
     also in several other departments were raised as early as 7 August 2000, when l'Avenir, a
     Congolese Newspaper, published a media report containing allegations that several
     MONUC staff members were engaged in fraud and corruption.35 Since that time
     allegations of purported corrupt practices of MONUC staff members were persistently
     reported by both United Nations staff members and MONUC's vendors.

VIII. SUBJECT 1
  A. ALLEGATIONS
     33.   The following matters referred to the Task Force by the Investigations Division of
     OIOS are addressed in this Report.
     34.  On 7 August 2000, L'Avenir, in an article entitled "Bandits et criminels peuplent
     la MONUC" reported serious allegations of purported misconduct by MONUC staff
     members.36 The newspaper article referred among others to Subject 1, who had allegedly

     31
        Id.
     32
        Staff Member 3 interview (23 April 2007).
     33
        Staff Member 4 interview (18 April 2007).
     34
        Subject 2 interview (21 February 2007).
     35
        "Bandits et criminels peuplent la MONUC," l'Avenir, 7 August 2000.
     36
        "Bandits et criminels peuplent la MONUC," l'Avenir, 7 August 2000.


                                                                                                         PAGE 9


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


favored a Lebanese contractor and obtained in return free accommodations and a new car.
The then Chief Administrative Officer of MONUC, Mr. Hany Abdel-Aziz by
memorandum dated 14 August 2000, forwarded the article to OIOS recommending that
an investigation be undertaken.37
35.    On 15 July 2002, a former MONUC procurement assistant in an interview with
OIOS investigators reported vague concerns about the fact that unsolicited bids were
received from a vendor for the charter of barges for a contract which was handled by
Subject 1.38
36.    On 28 February 2003, OIOS opened an investigation into alleged irregularities in
regard to the procurement of cafeteria services for MONUC Headquarters and other
Kinshasa offices.39 The bidding exercise was conducted by Subject 1.40
37.    On 7 April 2004, the then CPO of MONUC, Ms. Shane, reported in a
memorandum to the Chief of Staff further allegations of procurement officials being
involved in corrupt activities.41 In a meeting with MONUC's Chief Resident Auditor,
Ms. Shane stated that she was informed that Subject 1 had received payments from an
unidentified United Nations vendor in order to facilitate processing of payments and had
also demanded payment from another United Nations contractor.42
38.    Another investigation of Subject 1 was initiated by OIOS on 9 December 2005
based on information received from the then OIC of the Procurement Section, Staff
Member 4. Staff Member 4 reported that one of her staff members was informed by a
contractor, whose company was awarded the contract for the rehabilitation of the Bunia
runway, that Subject 1 had approached him during the bidding process for the contract
and asked for money in exchange for ensuring that the company was awarded the
contract.43
39.    Staff Member 1 further reported to OIOS that Subject 1 had received money from
another construction company for their contract for the refurbishment of the Bukavu
Runway.44
40.    In the course of the investigation the following additional matters were brought to
the Task Force's attention.
41.    On 15 May 2006, Etablissement Ekima, a local Congolese company and a
supplier of cement and other construction material for MONUC, in a letter to Ms. Hazel
Scott, MONUC's Director of Administration, stated that company officials privately met
with Subject 1 at his house and that Subject 1 repeatedly provided them with information


37
   ID/OIOS case no. 222/00; Hany Abdel-Aziz memorandum to Edwin Nhiliziyo (14 August 2000).
38
   ID/OIOS cases nos.331/02 and 330/02.
39
   ID/OIOS case no.087/03.
40
    RFP no. RFP 03/CAFETERIA/2002 (prepared by Subject 1).
41
   ID/OIOS case no.125/04; Judith Shane memorandum to Jaque Grinberg (7 April 2004).
42
   William Peterson memorandum of discussion, prepared by William Peterson (13 April 2004).
43
   ID/OIOS case no. 695/05.
44
   Id.


                                                                                                   PAGE 10


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
   INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
   STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
   ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


   on bids. The vendor further stated that it was willing to explain other incidents of
   "impropriety" on the part of Subject 1.45
   42.    Forensic evidence gathered by the Task Force revealed that several bank transfers
   were made from Subject 1's UNFCU account to Belgian bank accounts of Company
   Representative 15, owner of the UAC Sprl. ("UAC"),46 and Company Representatives 16
   and 18, owners of Panache Sprl. ("Panache"),47 both of which are local Congolese
   companies doing business with the United Nations.               The investigations were
   subsequently extended to Subject 1's relations to these contractors.
   43.    Based on the preliminary results of the investigation it became apparent that a
   comprehensive analysis of allegations reported to OIOS since Subject 1's first
   appointment with the United Nations for the United Nations Disengagement Observer
   Force ("UNDOF") was warranted. The following matters that had previously been
   closed were re-investigated and are addressed in this Report:
   44.    On 8 July 1996, Mr. Derek Coggon, a former procurement staff member at the
   United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda ("UNAMIR") reported several other
   incidents of purported corruptive and fraudulent activities by Subject 1 to OIOS.48 While
   cleaning computer hard drives, Mr. Per Einarson of UNAMIR's Communications Unit
   found a file in the system folders of a computer that had previously been used by Subject
   1. The file was entitled "xxxxx-MGT" and contained a spreadsheet indicating purchases
   from company called Maitha General Trading ("MGT"). At the bottom of the
   spreadsheet several payments made to Subject 1 by MGT's representatives were noted.
   45.     On 15 December 2001, further allegations of Subject 1 supposedly "owning a
   general trading company, MGT located in Abu Dhabi or Dubai" were reported to the
   Investigations Division.49 Both cases were closed by OIOS as the Investigations Division
   concluded that allegations were not sufficiently substantiated.

B. PROFESSIONAL AND PERSONAL BACKGROUND
   46.    Subject 1 was born on 8 August 1953 in Alepo, Syria. Since 1978, he has been
   married to xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, a Greek national with whom he has three children whose
   ages are ten, twenty-seven, and twenty-nine.50 In 1997, he applied for Greek citizenship
   and changed his nationality from Syrian to Greek in July 2003.51 The United Nations
   Office of Human Resources rejected Subject 1's application for change of country of


   45
      Company Representative 10 letter to Hazel Scott (15 May 2006)
   46
      UNFCU, Subject 1 wire transfer request to Company Representative 15 (6 June 2003).
   47
      UNFCU, Subject 1 wire transfer request to Company Representatives 16 and 18 (20 January 2004).
   48
      ID/OIOS case no. 121/96.
   49
      ID/OIOS case no. 338/01.
   50
      Personnel Action Form #1141255 (xxxxxxxxx born xxxxxxxxx); United Nations Status Report and
   Request for Payment of Dependency Benefits (24 May 1990) (xxxxxxxxx born xxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxx
   born xxxxxxxxx).
   51
      Greek Passport no. T 868502 (issued on 14 July 2003).


                                                                                                      PAGE 11


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
  INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
  STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
  ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


  nationality as he did not meet the requirement of prolonged residence in Greece
  preceding his appointment with the Organisation.52
  47.     Subject 1 was recruited as a local buyer in procurement for UNDOF in Damascus
  on 8 March 1982.53 In March 1994, he was temporarily assigned as procurement
  assistant to UNAMIR and returned to UNDOF in September 1996.54 According to
  Subject 1, he resigned from the United Nations in September 1997 when his wife decided
  to move to Greece to provide a better education for their two sons.55 In 1998, Subject 1
  came to New York where he applied again for a job with the Organisation.56 On 9 March
  2000, Subject 1 was recruited as procurement assistant under an Appointment of Limited
  Duration ("ALD") in Field Service at MONUC where he has worked since.57
  48.     During his time at MONUC, Subject 1 was the buyer responsible for all kinds of
  commodities. He has worked for all procurement units with his most recent position
  being in the Engineering and Transportation Unit since February 2007.58
  49.     Subject 1's current contract expires on 30 June 2007.59

C. UNDOF
  50.    The first concerns regarding Subject 1's professional integrity were raised during
  the time of his first assignment as a local staff member with the Organisation in
  Damascus. Staff Member 5, the then Chief contracts officer at UNDOF, reported to the
  Chief Administrative Officer that he had caught Subject 1 falsifying Receiving and
  Inspection Reports ("R&I Reports").60
  51.     When interviewed by the Task Force, Staff Member 5 stated that an Israeli
  company, located in Birsheva, Israel, but whose name he could not recall, supplied
  UNDOF with construction material. Subject 1 together with a Canadian Captain
  arranged for the delivery of these supplies. According to Staff Member 5, Subject 1 and
  the other individual "seemed to work out an arrangement to defraud the Organisation."
  First, contracts for goods were awarded to the company. Next, when the goods were
  delivered they would falsify R&I Reports by certifying receipt of all goods procured
  while only partial shipments were received. The company would then charge the
  Organisation for the whole amount and the money defrauded from the Organisation
  would be split between them and the company.61 Staff Member 5 confirmed that he
  actually "caught" Subject 1 red-handed in the process of forging an R&I Report, as did
  his colleague, Staff Member 6.
  52
     Catherine Rolland memorandum to Subject 1 (29 December 2003).
  53
     UNDOF Letter of Appointment (17 March 1982).
  54
     United Nations, Performance Evaluation Report (7 August 1996).
  55
     Subject 1 interview (27 February 2007). No documents were identified to corroborate this information).
  56
     Id.
  57
     United Nations Letter of Appointment (8 March 2000).
  58
     Subject 1 interview (27 February 2007).
  59
     Personnel Action � Notification (1 July 2006); Personnel Action #1362270 (20 June 2006).
  60
     Staff Member 5 interview (23 April 2007).
  61
     Id.


                                                                                                     PAGE 12


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




 Figure: Staff Member 5 interview (23 April 2007)

52.     Staff Member 6 who worked as contracts officer at UNDOF with Subject 1 in
1985, in his interview with the Task Force of 9 May 2007, concurrently confirmed these
statements made by Staff Member 5.62 He recalled a problem with an R&I Report for a
delivery of cement sometime in 1985 or 1986. A company called OASIS had a contract
with UNDOF for the provision of cement. A partial delivery was received and paid for
by the mission. The vendor then submitted an invoice for the total purchase amount,
although only partial delivery had been made and sixty tons of cement were yet to be
delivered. Staff Member 6 related that he found an R&I Report in his inbox certifying
that the order was received in full. The report was "authorized" by the then Deputy Chief
Logistics Officer, but was handwritten and looked like Subject 1's handwriting. Staff
Member 6 recalled that the matter was reported to the Chief Administrative Officer but
did not know what happened thereafter.63
53.    After this incident a list was requested of the names and signatures of those who
were authorized to complete the R&I Report in order to compare names to ensure proper
authorization of R&I reports.64
54.     Staff Member 6 further told the investigators that this was not the first time that
Subject 1 had forged procurement related documents. Another incident occurred in
connection with a contract for concrete foundation when Staff Member 6 found out that
Subject 1 had issued a purchase order to a company using his name and initials. Staff
Member 6 stated that Subject 1 had manually prepared the purchase order and signed it
with his initials. When he confronted Subject 1 with what he had found and presented
him with a copy of the purchase order, Subject 1 grabbed it out of his hand and ripped it
up. Staff Member 6 stated that he learned from one of his friends that Subject 1
requested US$500 from the said vendor in exchange for his assistance to the company in
getting the contract awarded. Shortly after Staff Member 6 informed Subject 1 that the
contract had to be rebid, he was approached by the vendor directly asking what he wanted
in order to award the contract to his company.65
55.    When interviewed about these findings by the Task Force on 16 May 2007,
Subject 1 denied having ever forged R&I Reports and purchase orders and stated that his




62
   Staff Member 6 interview (9 May 2007).
63
   Id.
64
   Id.
65
   Id., p. 2 (emphasis added).


                                                                                                   PAGE 13


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
  INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
  STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
  ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


  former colleagues did not like him and would have invented the story to cause him
  trouble. 66
  56.     The Task Force could not find any indication that this incident had led to further
  investigation or that any administrative action was taken against Subject 1 after this
  incident was brought to the attention of the Chief Administrative Officer. According to
  Staff Member 5, the Chief Administrative Officer sent Subject 1 out of the mission to
  Rwanda, where he was promoted and became an international staff member.67

D. UNAMIR
  57.     On 8 August 1996, OIOS received a complaint from UNAMIR alleging that
  Subject 1 was favoring a certain vendor by the name of Maitha General Trading LLC
  ("MGT"), a Dubai-based supplier of health, safety and environment products that
  provided - among others - camp services to UNAMIR. A paper entitled "Background
  information" was part of the case file, which contained details about the allegation; the
  identity of the author however, was not indicated in the files.68 According to the
  information contained in the document, Mr. Einarson, former Supervisor in the
  Communications Unit at UNAMIR, reported the following incident.
  58.    At some time during Mr. Einarson's stay in UNAMIR his office was given a
  computer for inventory of generator stores. However, the computers hard disk was
  cleaned. Borrowing diskettes from various sources, he installed the programs which he
  required. He noted after installing QPRO that there was a corruption of the system files
  with some missing files. One of his experts on computers was able to fix and retrieve the
  system files. In doing so, he noted a file among the system files called "Karim-MTG."
  He opened this file and was surprised to find an attached spreadsheet (see figure
  below).69 The spreadsheet indicated sixteen purchases for UNAMIR at a total amount of
  US$845,171. At the bottom of the page was a detailed list of payments made to Subject
  1 by representatives of MGT. The list further contained information that Subject 1
  received a percentage of the total purchase amount. The space for the amount "approved
  by Sanjay" was left blank.70




  66
     Subject 1 interview (16 May 2007).
  67
     Staff Member 5 interview (23 April 2007).
  68
     ID/OIOS case no. 121/96, "Background information" (undated).
  69
     Id.
  70
     ID/OIOS case no. 121/96, List of MGT Purchase Order and Associated Payments (undated); Dun &
  Bradstreet Report (14 March 1997) (showing a Sanjay Pahua as Marketing Manager for MGT).


                                                                                                     PAGE 14


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




     Figure: ID/OIOS case no. 121/96, List of MGT Purchase Orders and Associated Payments
     (undated)

59.     According to the information available to the Task Force, the case was closed on
8 August 1997 as OIOS had concluded that a preliminary investigation did not produce
sufficient information to render a finding.71
60.     The Task Force contacted Staff Member 7, who stated in his interview of 27 April
2007 that he could recall an incident when his office was given a computer for inventory
that had previously been used by Subject 1.72 When he opened the computer, he found
files, notes, purchase orders, and spreadsheets. He also found a spreadsheet listing
purchase orders for contracts that Subject 1 had worked on for the supply of cement and


71
     OIOS, Investigations Section, Case Management Change Form (8 August 1997).
72
     Staff Member 7 interview (27 April 2007).


                                                                                                   PAGE 15


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
  INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
  STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
  ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


  construction material by one of UNAMIR's vendors. The spreadsheet further listed
  payments and other items given to Subject 1 by the company.
  61.     Staff Member 7 stated that he reported this information to Mr. Willliam Clive,
  Chief of International Support at UNAMIR, but he was transferred back to his official
  duty station in Damascus thereafter.73
  62.     During the interview Staff Member 7 recalled another incident involving Subject
  1, when he had requested water pumps for generators.74 While Subject 1, who was the
  procurement assistant responsible for the case, was on holiday, another procurement
  officer, who replaced him during his absence, came to see Staff Member 7 to confirm a
  purchase of pumps priced at US$13,000 each. Staff Member 7 was in disbelief at the
  stated amount and decided to make his own inquiries on the market to confirm the prices.
  In doing so, he found that the pumps had a market price of at most US$300. The bids
  that Subject 1 had in his files, however, were for US$11,000, US$12,000 and US$13,000
  respectively.75
  63.     Subject 1 was interviewed by the Task Force about these findings and firmly
  denied the allegations.76 He stated he knew that two of his former colleagues, Mr.
  Coggon and Mr. Kanjanakantorn had falsely accused him of being improperly involved
  with MGT. When presented with the spreadsheet that was found on his computer in
  UNAMIR -Rwanda, Subject 1 stated that he had never seen the spreadsheet before and
  denied that he had prepared it. He insisted that anyone could have created the
  spreadsheet and that the people who had accused him were lying. Subject 1 admitted that
  he knew Mr. Mahmoud Ali, the representative of MGT listed on the spreadsheet. He
  further admitted that "he had worked on some purchase orders for MGT." He was asked
  if he had received the amounts and items listed on the spreadsheet, which he denied. He
  went on to question why, if he had prepared the spreadsheet, the blank space for the
  percent received had not been filled out.77
  64.     Subject 1 left UNAMIR in August 1996. He returned to UNDOF, but left the
  Organisation in September 1997.78 Two years later, on 8 March 2000, Subject 1 was
  recruited as procurement assistant under an Appointment of limited Duration in Field
  Service at MONUC.79

E. MONUC
  65.    Rumors about Subject 1's involvement in fraudulent activities began to circulate
  as early as August 2000, only five months after his arrival at the mission, when the
  Congolese newspaper L'Avenir in its issue of 7 August 2000 raised allegations of corrupt

  73
     Id.
  74
     Id.
  75
     Id.
  76
     Subject 1 interview (16 May 2007).
  77
     Id.
  78
     Subject 1 interview (27 February 2007).
  79
     United Nations Letter of Appointment (24 March 2000).


                                                                                                     PAGE 16


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


activities involving several MONUC staff members. In the article it was reported, inter
alia, that Subject 1 favored certain Lebanese companies and that he had been involved in
acts of corruption with a Lebanese business man who provided him with a stylish car in
exchange for Subject 1's assistance in getting contracts with MONUC.80
66.     The article was forwarded to OIOS by Mr. Abdel-Aziz, the then Chief
Administrative Officer, by memorandum of 14 August 2000. In his memorandum, Mr.
Abdel Aziz further reported general allegations of fraud and corruption by MONUC staff
that had been brought to his attention.81 Mr. Abdel-Aziz recommended that an OIOS
investigation be undertaken, adding that "failing to do so will create a dubious
environment in the Mission, which is currently taking proportion in the city."82
67.    A preliminary report was issued by the Audit and Management Consulting
Division ("AMCD") of OIOS on 12 September 2000.83 The audit revealed that Subject 1
was leasing the previously mentioned car for about US$250 per month, which according
to the report was "well below market for renting a car in Kinshasa, which is around
US$1,050."84 OIOS recommended that staff members be reminded of their procurement
responsibilities and that "staff members should be transferred to other missions if their
behavior does not change to avoid bad press for the Organisation and its staff."85
68.    To determine whether these recommendations had been followed and what action
had been taken against Subject 1 in this context, the Task Force contacted the then CPO,
Staff Member 1. In his interviews of 17 and 20 April 2007, Staff Member 1 recalled
problems with Subject 1 involving a Mercedes-Benz that he supposedly had received
from one of MONUC's contractors.86 He stated that Subject 1, when first confronted
with the allegations, stated that he had bought the car from "a lady he did not deal with as
a buyer."87 Later however, he admitted that he had received the car, a Mercedes-Benz,
from one of MONUC's vendors, but claimed that he had only rented the car. Staff
Member 1 recalled that at around the same time, while he was on leave, Subject 1 rented
cars for the missions at a rate that was forty percent higher than prices previously
negotiated with the contractor.88
69.    As Staff Member 1 did not recall the name of the vendor and the events in
question occurred almost seven years ago, the Task Force was not able to retrieve
documents that may have corroborated this information by identifying the company in
question.

80
   "Bandits et criminels peuplent la MONUC," L'avenir, 7 August 2000 ("Il choisit de faire des affaires
avec les Libanasis. Il s'est fait corrompre dernierement par un homme d'affaires libanais. Ce dernier lui a
offert une voiture d'une marque en vogue").
81
   Hany Abdel-Aziz memorandum to Edwin Nihiliziyo (14 August 2000).
82
   Id.
83
   AMCD/OIOS, Preliminary Report of Newspaper Allegations and Other Matters (12 September 2000).
84
   Id.
85
   Id.
86
   Staff Member 1 interviews (17 and 20 April 2007).
87
   Id.
88
   Id.


                                                                                                   PAGE 17


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


70.    When interviewed by the Task Force on 27 February 2007, Subject 1 claimed that
he was never offered, nor had he requested or received, benefits of any sort from any of
MONUC's vendors, either in cash or in the form of cars or other favors.89
71.    Although investigations of these early allegations were impeded by the fact that
some of the events in question occurred more than twenty years ago, it became apparent
that an immediate investigation of other allegations was warranted as it could have a
potential impact on MONUC's ongoing bidding exercises and contracts.

1.      Etablissement Ekima
72.    Etablissement Ekima ("Ekima"), a Kinshasa-based company, is a supplier for
cement and other construction materials to MONUC. According to the information
provided by the company's owner Company Representative 10, Ekima commenced its
business activities with MONUC in 2000,90 but was only registered as approved
MONUC supplier two years later on 25 October 2002.91 Based on the information
provided to the Task Force by MONUC, thirty-three purchase orders totaling the amount
of US$800,365 had been issued to Ekima from 2003 to the present.92
73.     On 15 May 2006, Company Representative 10 submitted a written complaint to
Ms. Scott, MONUC's Director of Administration.93 Company Representative 10
reported that he was invited to the house of Subject 1 on 8 April 2006 where he was told
that Ekima was going to be blacklisted from the MONUC vendor roster due to Company
Representative 10's improperly close relationship to Subject 3, another procurement
assistant, who allegedly provided Ekima with internal information on MONUC's bidding
exercises. Company Representative 10 reported that it was indeed not Subject 3 but
Subject 1 who had repeatedly provided him with information on bidding exercises and
added that he was willing to report other incidents of "impropriety" involving Subject 1.94
74.    Internal inquiries were made by Subject 2, the then OIC of the Procurement
Section and a meeting was held on 20 May 2006. At the meeting, Subject 1 was given
the possibility to comment on Company Representative 10 and Ekima's allegations.95
According to the notes taken during the meeting by Subject 2, Subject 1 confirmed that
he had met with Company Representative 10 in private but otherwise stated that he had


89
   Subject 1 interview (27 February 2007).
90
   Company Representative 10 interview (2 May 2007) The Task Force was not able to corroborate this
information as the Procurement Section can only access purchase orders or procurement information in the
current procurement database, which contains information from 1 July 2002 to present. Magdalene Venn
email to the Task Force (15 June 2007).
91
   List of ETS Ekima Purchase Orders from 2003 to 2007 (provided by MONUC to the Task Force on 15
June 2007).
92
   Id.
93
   Company Representative 10 "Protest letter" to Hazel Scott (15 May 2006) (copied to the Chief
Procurement Officer).
94
   Id.
95
   Subject 2 Meeting Notes � Letter from Ekima dated 15 May 2006 (5 June 2006) (describing Subject 2's
meeting with Ekima).


                                                                                                   PAGE 18


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


"nothing to say" and would prefer to wait for a meeting with the Director of
Administration "where all words will be spoken."96
75.     The notes taken during the meeting together with additional information were
forwarded by Ms. Klopp to Ms. Scott by memoranda of 7 and 9 June 2006 with the
"strong recommendation that [the case] be forwarded to OIOS for review and
investigation."97 The files available to the Task Force, however, did not contain any
indication that the matter was ever brought to the attention of OIOS.
76.     The Task Force interviewed Company Representative 10 on 2 and 4 May 2007.98
During his first interview, Company Representative 10 stated that the initial problems
with Subject 1 began in connection with the bid for a steel contract for approximately
US$300,000 when Subject 1, although not the procurement official in charge of the
contract, called him unofficially stating that he heard Ekima had problems and wanted to
offer "help."99 Although Subject 1 did not ask for a specific amount of money, the way
he expressed it made it clear that he was asking for bribes. Company Representative 10i
insisted that he had declined Subject 1's offer but that subsequently in 2001, another
similar incident with Subject 1 had occurred.
77.    According to Company Representative 10, during an ongoing bidding exercise for
contracts for the provision of construction material at a total value of US$170,000 he met
Subject 1 by coincidence in a Greek Restaurant. Subject 1 again made a similar offer
although he was not the procurement officer in charge of the contract. Company
Representative 10 confirmed that he declined Subject 1's offer again.100
78.     The third incident that Company Representative 10 finally brought to the attention
of Ms. Scott occurred in 2006. During an ongoing bidding exercise for the provision of
cement to Kisangani, when he met Subject 1 at a nightclub in Kinshasa, Subject 1 told
him that he had learned of Ekima's problems with their cement contract and offered his
help in resolving these problems. The next day, Subject 1 called him and invited him to
his house. During the meeting Subject 1 told him that Ekima was going to be blacklisted
for its involvement in corrupt practices with another procurement assistant. Subject 1
offered to help solve these problems. After the conversation Company Representative 10
asked for an appointment with Subject 4, the procurement officer in charge of their
contracts. He was then informed by Subject 4 that there were no existing problems with
Ekima's contracts. Company Representative 10 stated in the interview that although
Subject 1 did not explicitly ask for bribes once again, it was clear that his only intention
in making up the lies about Ekima was to receive some form of monetary payment.
Company Representative 10 stated that, as a result, the bid for the Kisangani cement was
canceled after the meeting and the contract was rebid.101

96
   Subject 1 interview (27 February 2007).
97
   Barbara Klopp memorandum to Hazel Scott (9 June 2006).
98
   Company Representative 10 interview (2 May 2007); The Task Force note-to-file (4 May 2007).
99
   Company Representative 10 interview (2 May 2007).
100
    Id.
101
    Id.


                                                                                                   PAGE 19


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


79.    Two days later, on 4 May 2007, when Company Representative 10 was invited to
review the summary of his interview, he stated that he wanted to provide the investigators
with additional information "off the records." Additionally, he stated that he wanted to
make some corrections to his first interview.
80.    At that time, Company Representative 10 admitted that upon Subject 1's request,
Ekima had repeatedly provided free painting services for Subject 1's private apartment
and swimming pool.102
81.    The first time in which Ekima had provided services for Subject 1 was upon
Subject 1's request for the free painting of his private swimming pool. After the work
had been completed by Ekima, Subject 1 requested a fake invoice which he intended to
submit to his landlord in order to be reimbursed for his "expenses." Company
Representative 10 confirmed that he provided Subject 1 with the invoice although--as
agreed at the outset-- Subject 1 never paid for the services received. When asked about
the market price for the services rendered, Company Representative 10 stated that the
cost was approximately US$1,000.103
82.    The second time Subject 1 requested and received free painting of his apartment
was after he had moved to a new building. The approximate price for such services
would have been about US$1,500, but Company Representative 10 could not recall the
exact dates of these events.104
83.    Company Representative 10 confirmed that he submitted to Subject 1's requests
because he feared that Subject 1 would cause him problems with his future contracts if he
refused him these favors.105
84.     Company Representative 10 stated that on a third occasion, Subject 1 requested
Ekima to perform a complete renovation of a restaurant that was owned by one of Subject
1's friends, free of charge. This would have included not only painting, but also
plumbing and the complete sanitary installation. Subject 1's demands in this instance had
an approximate market value of about US$30,000. Because Ekima was not in the
financial position to grant favors of that size, Company Representative 10 refused to
grant the services to Subject 1 for the first time.106
85.   Shortly thereafter, Subject 1 began to spread the aforementioned rumors about
Ekima that finally led to Company Representative 10's complaint to MONUC's Director
of Administration.107
86.    On 18 May 2007, the Task Force interviewed Subject 3, procurement assistant at
MONUC. In a letter dated 16 May 2007 to Ms. Scott, she expressed her indignation
regarding Subject 1's accusations that she had provided Company Representative 10 with

102
    The Task Force note-to-file (4 May 2007).
103
    Id.
104
    Id.
105
    Id.
106
    Id.
107
    Id.


                                                                                                   PAGE 20


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


inside information of MONUC's bidding exercises and requested that the matter be
referred to OIOS for a full investigation.108
87.      Subject 3 stated that she was aware of the fact that Subject 1 had repeatedly
requested favors from Ekima.109 She confirmed that Company Representative 10 told her
about Subject 1's attempts to receive free painting services and added that in her opinion
Company Representative 10 had no reason to invent such accusations as he had an
ongoing contract with MONUC and therefore no reason to complain. Subject 3 insisted
that, as far as she was aware, "Company Representative 10 had resisted all of Subject 1's
overtures."110 She added that she did not report these incidents because she did not think
that whistleblowers were fully protected in the United Nations system.
88.    In his interview of 16 May 2007, when presented with these findings, Subject 1
firmly denied the accusations. He insisted that he "did nothing wrong" and that he had
"no idea what had happened."111
89.     Subject 1 confirmed that he had a private swimming pool in the house which he
had inhabited from 2001 to 2005 and that he moved to an apartment owned by the Greek
community in February 2005. In September 2006, he moved again into a unit on the
third floor of the same building.112
90.     Subject 1 further confirmed that he met with Company Representative 10 in his
house on several occasions, but stated that during one of these meetings it was Company
Representative 10 himself who wanted to talk about his contracts with MONUC. Subject
1 insisted that he ended the conversation and asked him to inquire with his colleagues as
he did not want to "interfere" with their cases.113
91.     Subject 1 firmly denied having ever received anything of value from Company
Representative 10.114 Only upon repeated inquiry by the investigators could he then
recall that Company Representative 10 had indeed painted his swimming pool.
According to Subject 1, he intended to pay for the services received and had in fact asked
Company Representative 10 for the amount which was due for the services rendered.
Company Representative 10, however, told him that the work usually costs US$150 but
that he should only give him US$50. Subject 1 stated that although he insisted to pay the
full amount, Company Representative 10 refused and only took US$50 from the US$150
he had held in his hand.115
92.     After a while, Subject 1 could then further recall that Company Representative 10
had also painted his apartment. Subject 1 insisted that he had paid an amount of US$350
for the services received and told the investigators that he had even kept Ekima's invoice

108
    Subject 3 letter to Hazel Scott (16 May 2006).
109
    Subject 3 interview (18 May 2007).
110
    Id.
111
    Subject 1 interview (16 May 2007).
112
    Id.
113
    Id.
114
    Id.
115
    Id.


                                                                                                   PAGE 21


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


and thus could provide evidence that he had paid for the work done. Subject 1
vehemently denied having received Ekima's services for free or having requested a fake
invoice from Company Representative 10.116
93.    Upon further questioning, Subject 1 stated that he had also asked Company
Representative 10 to paint the restaurant of one of his Greek friends, but insisted that he
never requested Company Representative 10 to provide these services for free nor was he
aware whether Ekima finally did the work for his friend.117
94.    Subject 1 finally claimed that he was not even the case officer for purchases from
Ekima and that "he [had] never dealt with the man." However, later in the interview, he
admitted that he "might have done some purchase orders."118
95.    On three of the purchase orders issued to Ekima, Subject 1 was formally listed as
the buyer. The total value of these purchases amounted to US$46,050. Yet based upon
the findings, it is evident that Subject 1 was also in the position to unduly influence
procurement exercises handled by his colleagues.119
96.    When asked if he was aware that private meetings with vendors outside the office
were inconsistent with his position as procurement official, Subject 1 stated that he was
never made aware of that and was never told not to do so.120
97.     To the contrary, the former OIC of the Procurement Section, Staff Member 4, in
her interview with the Task Force confirmed that she had cautioned Subject 1 that it was
improper to meet privately with vendors after it had been brought to her attention that
Subject 1 had invited vendors to his house.121
98.     Furthermore, Subject 1 himself, with his signature on various procurement
circulars, certified that he had read and understood Section 4 of the Procurement Manual,
and was aware of the ethics and professional responsibilities with regard to meetings with
vendors.122




116
    Id.
117
    Id.
118
    Id.
119
    Ekima purchase orders nos. 5KIN-200402/0; 5KIN-200551/0; 5KIN-200829/0.
120
    Subject 1 interview (16 May 2007).
121
    Staff Member 4 interview (18 April 2007).
122
    Barbara Klopp memorandum to All Procurement Staff (8 June 2006).


                                                                                                   PAGE 22


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




 Figure: Barbara Klopp memorandum to All Procurement Staff (8 June 2006)

99.     At the conclusion of the interview, Subject 1 told the investigators that the
tradition of Arab culture does not suit the United Nations rules and that "unfortunately,
reality doesn't follow the rules." He further explained that there is "no harm to bend the
rules from time to time but should not break the rules."123

2.      Soci�t� Matina Sprl. and Catering Contracts
100. Soci�t� Matina Sprl. ("Matina") is a Kinshasa-based company, owned by a Greek
national, Company Representative 1, which had been providing catering services to
MONUC's cafeterias and snack bars since February 2003.124
101. Cafeteria's or snack bars are located at the various MONUC locations in Kinshasa
including MONUC's air terminal.
102. During the last four years, MONUC's cafeterias and snack bars had been operated
by two local companies, Matina and Promo 2000. After Promo 2000 left MONUC
Headquarters in April 2007, Matina took over this location as well.125 All four cafeterias



123
    Subject 1 interview (16 May 2007).
124
    Company Representative 1 interview (16 May 2007).
125
    Staff Member 8 interview (17 May 2007); Company Representative 1 interview (16 May 2007).


                                                                                                   PAGE 23


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


are currently operated by Matina. As the company's contracts expire on 30 June 2007,126
a new bidding exercise for the provision of catering services to nine MONUC locations
was initiated in July 2006.127
103. Allegations of presumed irregularities in the awarding of catering contracts were
circulating not only in MONUC, but also among restaurant owners in the city for a long
time. Subject 1 had handled the previous procurement exercises and is also known to be
friends with Company Representative 1 (owner of Matina).128
104. On 6 February 2003, it was reported to OIOS that the owner of a Lebanese
restaurant in Kinshasa who unsuccessfully bid for the catering contract alleged that there
were some "dirty things" going on.129
105. The Task Force therefore requested all procurement files pertaining to bidding
exercises for cafeteria services from 2002 to present.130 In February 2007, the Task Force
further seized electronic data on Subject 1's working computer.
106. The investigations revealed that Subject 1 improperly assisted his friend Company
Representative 1, in preparing the proposal for the ongoing tender for the provision of
catering services to MONUC.

      a. Contract CON/MON/03/02
107. In April 2002, a request for proposal ("RFP") for the provision of cafeteria
services at four MONUC locations was sent out to seven restaurants. Subject 1 was the
procurement assistant responsible for the bidding exercise as indicated on the RFP.131 By
the closing date of 15 May 2002, three valid proposals by Promo 2000, Al Dar
Restaurant, and Matina were submitted to the Tender Opening Committee.132
108. An abstract of bids was prepared by Subject 1 on 12 June 2002.133 The Task
Force's review of the relevant proposals revealed that the prices listed by Subject 1 on the
bid abstract in several cases were lower and did not match the prices indicated on
Matina's proposal.
109. A technical evaluation was conducted by General Services which resulted in the
fact that Al Dar Restaurant with 302 points was the clear leader, followed by Matina with

126
    Subject 2 letter to Kyriakos Gounaris (27 April 2007) (no amendment to the original contract no.
CON/MON/05-002 was found in the files available to the Task Force showing extension of the contract
beyond 31 March 2007).
127
    RFP no. TEN/MON/06-066 (25 July 2006) (for Provision of Catering Services to MONUC in
Kinshasa).
128
    Staff Member 9 interview (18 April 2007).
129
    ID/OIOS case no. 087/03.
130
    The Task Force request for assistance to Staff Member 13 (7 May 2007) (copy to Subject 2) (identifying
Staff Member 13 as Chief Administrative Officer).
131
    RFP no. 03/Cafeteria/2002 (20 April 2002) (for cafeteria services at MONUC's various locations in
Kinshasa).
132
    Faisal Ghanem memorandum to Pirojna Onmongcol (12 June 2002).
133
    MONUC Procurement Section Abstract of Bids (12 June 2002).


                                                                                                   PAGE 24


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


167 points and then Promo 2000 with only 112 points. However, as it was found that
none of the proposals were fully compliant with the requests of the Statement of Work, a
re-bidding exercise was recommended.134
110. On 4 October 2002, a second RFP was issued to eight companies.135 Offers from
six companies were received by the closing date of 30 October 2002.136 The abstract of
bids was prepared by Subject 1 and a technical evaluation was conducted.137 On 23
December 2002, the Technical Evaluation Report was submitted by the Contract
Management Section to the Procurement Section, and this time Matina, together with
Promo 2000, were found to be technically compliant, whereas Al Dar Restaurant, along
with the other bidders, were now no longer considered to meet the requirements of the
RFP.138
111. On 28 December 2002, Matina and Promo 2000 were notified of the contract
award.139
112. It was not until one month later--on 29 January 2003--that Matina's vendor
registration was prepared by Subject 1.140
113. The contracts were awarded on a split award basis. While Matina was awarded a
twelve-month contract for MONUC Log Base "Ex Ivecco" and MONUC Compound "Ex
Alcatel,"141 Promo 2000 was awarded a seventeen-month contract for MONUC
Headquarters and the snack bar at the MONUC terminal at N'Djili Airport.142
114. When Promo 2000 stopped providing services at the airport in November 2003,
Matina's contract was extended by the Procurement Section on 5 November 2003 to
include the provision of snack bar services at the airport.143 The contract was
subsequently amended three times to extend the services to December 2004.144
115. During their visit to MONUC, investigators met with Company Representative
11, owner of the Lebanese Restaurant named Al Dar. Company Representative 11 had
reported his concerns regarding the irregularities in the bidding process to the local
investigators in 2003. Company Representative 11 stated that he submitted a proposal for
the provision of catering services in 2002.145


134
    Gilles Briere Technical evaluation of Catering Proposals to Subject 4 (24 September 2002); Gilles
Briere memorandum (6 September 2002).
135
    RFP no. TEN/MON/06/02 (4 October 2002) (for provision of cafeteria services to MONUC's various
locations in Kinshasa).
136
    Faisal Ghanem memorandum to Gilles Briere (14 November 2002).
137
    MONUC Procurement Section, Abstract of Bids (14 November 2002).
138
    Gilles Briere Technical evaluation of Cafeteria offers to Subject 4 (23 December 2002).
139
    Subject 4 memoranda to Gournaris Kyriakos and Noel Camillieri (28 December 2002).
140
    MONUC Registration form for contractors/vendors (29 January 2003).
141
    Contract CON/MON/03/02 (5 August 2003) (signed by Ms. Shane).
142
    Contract CON/MON/03/01 (6 May 2004) (signed by Ms. Shane).
143
    Amendment no. 1 to Contract no. CON/MON/03/02 (26 December 2002) (signed by Ms. Shane).
144
    Amendments nos. 1�3 to Contract no. CON/MON/03/02.
145
    Company Representative 11 interview (27 February 2007).


                                                                                                   PAGE 25


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


116. At the time, Subject 1 was a regular patron at Al Dar. On one occasion, Subject 1
came to the restaurant and asked Company Representative 11 about the rental price for a
villa that Company Representative 11 owns in Kinshasa. When told that the rental price
was US$1,500, Subject 1 responded that he was interested in renting the house for
US$800.146
117. Shortly after Company Representative 11 had submitted his proposal for cafeteria
services, a friend of his, a Greek national named "Niko," approached him. "Niko" told
him that it was "as good as decided in MONUC that he would win the bid" but that it
would be necessary to give Subject 1 a good price for his villa. Although it was never
stated directly, it was apparent that Subject 1 was attempting to request benefits for the
award of the cafeteria contract. When confronted by Company Representative 11,
however, Subject 1 denied the accusation.147
118. Company Representative 11 stated that he refused to rent Subject 1 his villa at the
suggested price in exchange for the award of the contract. After a dubious and
questionable rebid process, the contract was awarded to another member of the Greek
community.148
119. Subject 1, in his interview with the Task Force, denied having ever asked for
financial benefits from any of the bidders for the cafeteria contracts.149

      b. Contract CON/MON/05/002
120. In early 2004, a new bidding exercise for catering contracts for the period from 1
January 2005 to 31 December 2005 was initiated by MONUC.150
121. On 5 April 2004, an RFP for the provision of Cafeteria Services at four MONUC
locations was issued to fourteen companies. The closing date for this RFP was 29 April
2004. The responsible case officer listed on the RFP was Subject 4.151 A site visit,
conducted on 16 April 2004, was attended by six companies.152
122. On 4 May 2004, the Tender Opening Committee (TOC) convened. Five valid
bids had been received.153
123. On 23 August 2004, the Cafeteria Committee submitted the Technical Evaluation
Report to the Procurement Section and concluded that none of the vendors were entirely
capable of meeting all the requirements for MONUC and recommended that the award
should be split. The overall score achieved by the companies was as follows:


146
    Id.
147
    Id.
148
    Id.
149
    Subject 1 interview (27 February 2007).
150
    RFP no. TEN/MON/04-020 (5 April 2004).
151
    Id.
152
    Site Visit Attendance Sheet (16 April 2004).
153
    Saeed Ahmed Tender Opening Committee memorandum to Judith Shane (5 May 2004) (identifying Mr.
Ahmed as the Alternate Chairperson).


                                                                                                   PAGE 26


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


        (i)      Promo 2000: Rank 1;
        (ii)     Restaurant les Jardins du Cercle: Rank 2; and
        (iii)    Matina/Etablissement Akropolis: Rank 3154
124. On 11 October 2004, a best and final offer ("BAFO") was requested.155 Although
requested by the Task Force, no documents were provided as to the results of the BAFO
exercise.
125. On 23 December 2004, Matina--according to the technical evaluation report only
the third best bidder--was notified that it was considered for a contract award for three of
the four locations requested by MONUC.156
126. That same day, Promo 2000 was informed that they would be awarded the fourth
location, which was MONUC Headquarters.157
127. Both contracts were awarded in January 2005 for twelve months from 1 January
2005 to 31 December 2005.158 Promo 2000's contract was extended until 31 December
2006 and Matina's contract was extended four times to 30 June 2007.159
128. After Promo 2000 left MONUC Headquarters in April 2007, Matina took over
this location as well.160

      c. Tender RFP TEN/MON/06-066
129. On 21 July 2006, a Statement of Work for catering services was prepared by Staff
Member 8, Chief of MONUC's Contract Management Section.161 A request for
expression of interest ("EOI") was issued in a local Congolese newspaper the same
day.162 Twenty-five companies responded to the request.163
130. RFP no. TEN/MON/06-066 was issued to twenty-five potential bidders on 26 July
2006. The closing date for the submission of bids was 25 August 2006. Eight companies
acknowledged receipt of the RFP.164
131. A site visit took place on 4 August 2006 at Congo B�timent, MONUC, where the
participants were taken through the key requirements of the RFP.165 Although twenty-

154
    Lesley McInnis Cafeteria Committee memorandum to Martin Buxey (23 August 2004) (identifying Ms.
McInnis as the Chairperson).
155
    Martin Buxey letter to bidders (11 October 2004).
156
    Martin Buxey letter to Gounaris Kyriakos (23 December 2004).
157
    Martin Buxey letter to Noel Camillieri (23 December 2004).
158
    Contracts nos. CON/MON/05/002 and CON/MON/05/003 (26 January 2005) (signed by Mr. Buxey).
159
    Amendment no. 1 to Contract no. CON/MON/05/003; Amendments nos. 1, 2, and 4 to Contract no.
CON/MON/05/002. The third Amendment was missing in the files provided to the Task Force.
160
    Company Representative 1 interview (16 May 2007); Staff Member 8 interview (17 May 2007).
161
    Staff Member 8 memorandum to Barbara Klopp (21 July 2006).
162
    Sollicitation de Manifestation d'int�r�tprestation de services de caf�t�ria/snack bar (21 July 2006).
163
    Anatoli Ryaboi memorandum to Barbara Klopp (4 August 2006).
164
    Request for proposal, TEN/MON/06-066 (26 July 2006) (for provision of catering services to MONUC
in Kinshasa).


                                                                                                   PAGE 27


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


five companies initially responded to the EOI, only three companies were present at this
site visit, including Promo 2000 and Matina, which were the current providers for
cafeteria services to MONUC. Staff Member 8, in his memorandum to Ms. Klopp dated
4 August 2006, requested that another site visit be scheduled for 11 August 2006 and that
the other companies be approached and invited to attend the meeting.166
132. Staff Member 11, the OIC of catering contracts, told the Task Force that she had
been on leave when the requests for proposals were sent out, but that to her knowledge,
there were no irregularities leading to the poor attendance of the site visit.167
133. However, Staff Member 8 stated that he had learned from Ms. Klopp that "there
was a problem with the fax machine" and that the requests for proposals were not sent
out.168
134. A new RFP was therefore issued on 8 August 2006 with an amended list of fifty-
three vendors. The closing date was extended to 8 September 2006 "to enable all bidders
to attend the site visit which had been poorly attended."169
135. Five days after the closing date, on Wednesday, 13 September 2006, 5:42 p.m., a
file was created on Subject 1's computer, entitled "Proposal Karim + Nikos.doc."170 The
named file contained Matina's technical proposal for catering services to MONUC. The
figure below shows that the file was created on Subject 1's computer:171




 Figure: Document properties for "Proposal Karim Nikos[122814].doc" (13 September 2006)
 (recovered from Subject 1's office computer at the United Nations)



165
    Staff Member 8 memorandum to Barbara Klopp (4 August 2006).
166
    Staff Member 8 memorandum to Barbara Klopp (4 August 2006).
167
    Staff Member 11 interview (14 June 2007).
168
    Staff Member 8 interview (17 May 2007).
169
    Barbara Klopp memorandum to Abraham Indieka (10 August 2006) (identifying Mr. Indieka as the
Chairman of the Tender Opening Committee).
170
    Subject 1 computer file, 152-Con-xxxxx-LPT\Part_1\NONAME-NTFS\Documents and Settings\
xxxxx\My Documents\My Documents\My Files\Kyriako 2006\Proposal xxxxx + Nikos.doc (13 September
2006) (recovered from Subject 1's office computer at the United Nations).
171
    Id.


                                                                                                   PAGE 28


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


136. One day later, on 14 September 2006, another file was created on Subject 1's
computer entitled "Financial Capability.doc."172 The file contained a letter from
Company Representative 1 to the Chairperson of the TOC. The figure below shows that
this file also was created on Subject 1's computer:




 Figure: Document properties for "Financial capability[122822].doc" (14 September 2006)
 (recovered from Subject 1's office computer at the United Nations)

137. On the same day, Thursday, 14 September 2006--six days after the closing date
for the submission of proposals--the deadline was extended again for unknown reasons
to 15 September 2006.173
138. The technical proposals were opened on 16 September 2006 by MONUC's
TOC.174 Twelve bids were received and forwarded to the Contracts Management Section
for technical evaluation on 28 September 2006.175 On 24 October 2006, the Technical
Evaluation Committee submitted its report to the Procurement Section.176
139. The only company found to be technically compliant for operating all nine
cafeterias and snack bars requested by MONUC was Matina.
140. None of the other proposals were found to be technically compliant for all of the
requested locations set out in the RFP.177



172
    Subject 1 computer file, 152-Con- xxxxx-LPT\Part_1\NONAME-NTFS\Documents and Settings\
xxxxx\My Documents\My Documents\My Files\Kyriako 2006\Financial capability.doc (14 September
2006) (recovered from Subject 1's office computer at the United Nations).
173
    Barbara Klopp interoffice memorandum to Abraham Indieka (14 September 2006). No information was
available in the files provided to the Task Force as to the background of this second extension.
174
    Bernard Pennel memorandum to Barbara Klopp (18 October 2006) (identifying Mr. Pennel as the
Alternate Chairman Tender Opening Committee).
175
    Barbara Klopp memorandum to Anatoli Ryaboi (28 September 2006).
176
    Anatoli Ryaboi memorandum to Subject 2 (24 October 2006).
177
    Id.


                                                                                                   PAGE 29


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


141. On 7 November 2006, the commercial proposals were opened by the TOC.178
The thirteen bids received were forwarded for commercial evaluation to the Procurement
Section on 8 November 2006.179 On 29 January 2007, comparative pricing summaries of
the proposals were submitted by the Procurement Section to the Contract Management
Section for advice as to who could be considered for possible contract awards.180 By the
time of the completion of the Task Force investigation the contract was due to be
awarded.181
142. When interviewed by the Task Force, Subject 1 confirmed that he knew Company
Representative 1, with whom he had been friends for a long time and prior to the point in
time when Company Representative 1 had became a MONUC contractor.182 He further
confirmed that they, together with "Nikos," were part of a group of friends from the
Greek community. Subject 1 stated that he had nothing further to say about the catering
contracts.183
143. When he was told that the investigators had found Matina's proposal for the
cafeteria contract saved as a file in his computer, Subject 1 stated that the day before the
proposal was due, Company Representative 1 had come by with a CD and had asked if he
could use his computer to print out the proposal because his own computer was
broken.184
144. When asked why he had saved the file under the file name "proposal Karim +
Nikos" onto his computer, he said that he did not know why the file was saved under this
name. However, he later stated that he had to save it under a name in order to print the
document from the CD, which had been damaged. He added that he had always used the
name "Nikos" and that using it in the file name did not have any particular significance or
meaning.185
145. Subject 1 vehemently insisted that the only thing he had done for Company
Representative 1 was print out the documents. He firmly denied having provided, either
alone or together with his friend Nikos, any other help or assistance for the contract
award to Company Representative 1. Subject 1 insisted that he had had no other choice
but to help Company Representative 1 with the printing of the document and upon
retrospect realized "it was a big mistake."186
146. Forensic examination of the electronic evidence revealed that on 12 September
2006, Subject 1 received an email from a Mr. Nicholas Kabourakis, whom Subject 1 in a



178
    Bernard Pennel memorandum to Subject 2 (8 November 2006).
179
    Id.
180
    Subject 2 memorandum to Anatoly Ryaboi (29 January 2007).
181
    Staff Member 11 interview (14 June 2007).
182
    Subject 1 interview (16 May 2007).
183
    Id.
184
    Id.
185
    Id.
186
    Id.


                                                                                                   PAGE 30


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


prior email addressed as "Nikos." Attached to this email was a compressed file named
"Kyriakos.zip":187




 Figure: Nicholas Kabourakis email to Subject 1 (12 September 2006)

147. Contained in the compressed file titled "kyriakos.zip" were three documents
named "OLD Kiriako-table.xls," "Corporate Capability.doc," and "OLD Kiriako.doc":188




187
    Nicholas Kabourakis email to Subject 1 (12 September 2006), D:\153-Con- xxxxx-
HDD\Export\ConvertedPST\ xxxxxxx.pst>>Personal Folders>>Top of Personal Folders>>Notes
Folders>>Mail threads>>Message0616.
188
    Id.


                                                                                                   PAGE 31


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




 Figure: Compressed file Kyriakos

148. The word document "Corporate Capability.doc" contained a rough draft of
Matina's technical proposal.189
149. The word document "Proposal Karim Nikos," found on Subject 1's computer,
contained a final, edited version of this draft technical proposal. This final version was
submitted as Matina's technical proposal on 15 September 2006.190
150. The forensic examination thus demonstrates that Subject 1's explanation that the
document was merely printed from his machine and that the file name "Proposal Karim
Nikos" did not have any significance is absolutely false.
151.    In fact, it is evident that Subject 1 himself drafted Matina's technical proposal.
152. The investigations further identified that Subject 1, on 19 April 2004 and 20 May
2004, had transferred amounts of US$800 and US$1,600, respectively, to the Greek Bank
account of a Mr. Kazakos Apostolos.191 The files were found on Subject 1's hard drive
and were saved under the names "Bank transfers, Kiki & Kiriakos (Euro Bank).xls"192
and "Bank transfer � Kiki & Kiriakos (Euro Bank) my ticket.xls."193 When presented
with these findings, Subject 1 stated that he had "once or twice" borrowed money from
Company Representative 1.194
153. In his interview with the Task Force on 16 May 2007, Company Representative 1
stated that he had bought into Matina when he had arrived in Kinshasa from Greece in
189
    Nicholas Kabourakis email to Subject 1 (12 September 2006) (containing "Corporate capability.doc").
190
    Soci�t� Matina proposal for RFP no. TEN/MON/06-066 (15 September 2006).
191
    UNFCU, Subject 1 wire transfer requests to Kazakos Apostolos (19 April and 20 May 2004).
192
    Subject 1 computer file, File: Bank Transfer Kiki & Kiriakos (Euro Bank).xls.
Full Path: 152-Con-xxxxx-LPT\Part_1\NONAME-NTFS\Documents and Settings\ xxxxxx\Desktop\My
Files\xxxxxx\Bank Transfer\Transfer to friends and others\Bank Transfer - Kiki & Kiriakos (Euro
Bank).xls.
193
    Subject 1 computer file, File: Bank Transfer Kiki & Kiriakos (Euro Bank) my ticket.xls.
Full Path: 152-Con xxxxx-LPT\Part_1\NONAME-NTFS\Documents and Settings\ xxxxx\Desktop\My
Files\ xxxxx\Bank Transfer\Transfer to friends and others\Bank Transfer - Kiki & Kiriakos (Euro Bank)
my ticket.xls
194
    Subject 1 interview (16 May 2007).


                                                                                                   PAGE 32


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


1995. When the former owner retired, Company Representative 1 purchased the
company together with his wife.195
154. Company Representative 1 confirmed that he was friends with Subject 1 and his
Greek wife, but denied that Subject 1 held any financial interest in Matina.196
155. When asked about his knowledge of Subject 1's involvement as procurement
assistant in the catering contracts, Company Representative 1 claimed that he had not
been aware that Subject 1 was the case officer for his first contract in 2003. He admitted
that he met with Subject 1 during the time of the bidding exercise, but insisted that they
"did not talk about the bid or the other companies involved."197
156. When asked about Matina's proposal that had been found on Subject 1's
computer, Company Representative 1 repeated what Subject 1 had already told the
investigators, namely that his computer had broken the day before the proposals were to
be submitted. He then stated that he had gone to Subject 1's house to ask if he could use
his laptop to write and print his proposal. Company Representative 1 stated that he had
initially insisted that they not speak about his proposal or the bidding exercise while he
was at Subject 1's house, but later conceded that Subject 1 had "changed only the English
to fix it because the English wasn't very good." He claimed to not know why the
document was saved under the names of Subject 1 and Nikos and insisted that this was
the only time he had used Subject 1's computer.198
157. It was only when the investigators presented him with the second document found
on Subject 1's computer, entitled "Financial Capability.doc," that Company
Representative 1 was able to recall that this too was written on Subject 1's computer. He
then amended his previous statement and conceded that he might have used Subject 1's
laptop "a few times."199
158. When asked about the money transfers made by Subject 1, Company
Representative 1 stated that he did not remember ever having lent money to Subject 1. If
there were payments made from Subject 1 to his account, he stated that it may have been
because Subject 1 had borrowed money from his wife. Company Representative 1 added
that it was common in Kinshasa to borrow money from one another since everything
there had to be paid in cash.200

3.      AVC Construct
159. AVC Construct, a Kinshasa-based company, is a supplier of engineering services
to MONUC. AVC Construct has been awarded a contract for the Rehabilitation of the



195
    Company Representative 1 interview (16 May 2007).
196
    Id.
197
    Id.
198
    Id.
199
    Id.
200
    Id.


                                                                                                   PAGE 33


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Bunia runway ("the Bunia contract"), an airfield on the Eastern Border of the Democratic
Republic of Congo ("DRC"), for a total value of US$5.5 million in July 2005.201
160. The procurement process for the upgrading of the Bunia runway has had a long
and problematic history ever since the first bidding exercise was carried out in 2003.
Subject 1 was the responsible case officer for this bidding exercise.
161. Due to incomplete procurement files, the Task Force's reconstruction of the
events described below had primarily to depend upon witness' statements.
162. A first RFP was issued on 14 August 2003.202 Qualified proposals were received
from three vendors, two of them ranging between US$8.8 million and US$8.9 million
and a third one for US$17.6 million.203 Best and final offers were negotiated with the
two lowest bidders, while the third company was not considered for negotiations since it
did not have a reasonable chance to be awarded the contract as stipulated in Section 11.68
of the Procurement Manual.204
163. Due to a misrepresentation of the case, when the case was presented to the LCC,
it was requested that a second BAFO be carried out with all three bidders.205 New
negotiations were conducted and one of the bidders' initial offer of US$17.6 million
suddenly dropped by more than US$10 million to US$7.4 million. It was suspected that
information had leaked to the company and it was decided that all proposals would be
rejected and that a new solicitation exercise would be carried out.206
164.    The case was referred to OIOS for investigation.207
165. AVC Construct did not participate in this first bidding exercise, but was listed on
the list of prequalified companies for construction work for the RFP.208
166. In light of the persistent rumors of Subject 1's involvement in kickbacks on
aviation projects, Ms. Klopp, the then Chief of the Engineering and Transportation Unit,
decided to take him off the Bunia runway project.209 The second procurement exercise
was assigned to another case officer, Ms. Marie-Gabriel Renois.210 However, according
to Subject 2, it "somehow ended up again with Subject 1."211
167. A second RFP was issued on 7 October 2004 to eighteen companies in five
countries with a closing date of 11 November 2004.212 The TOC opened the sealed bids

201
    Contract no. MON/CON/05/075 (21 July 2005) (signed by Mr. Buxey).
202
    RFP no. TEN/MON/17/03 (14 August 2003) (for Rehabilitation of Bunia Airport).
203
    Subject 2 memorandum to Marcel Savard (11 June 2004).
204
    Subject 2 interview (15 May 2007).
205
    Id.
206
    Subject 2 memorandum to Marcel Savard (11 June 2004).
207
    ID/OIOS case no. 188/04.
208
    List of Prequalified Companies for Construction work at the Bunia Runway (undated).
209
    Barbara Klopp note-to-file (30 March 2005) (phone discussion with Chief OIOS investigator).
210
    Subject 2 interview (15 May 2007); RFP no. TEN/MON/04-068.
211
    Subject 2 interview (15 May 2007).
212
    RFP no. TEN/MON/04-068, List of Invitees (7 October 2004) (listing nineteen companies and noting
that that one company, although invited, did not pick up the RFP).


                                                                                                   PAGE 34


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


for six proposals on 17 November 2004.213 MONUC's Engineering Section and the
International Civil Aviation Organization ("ICAO") submitted the technical evaluation to
the Procurement Section on 26 November 2004, identifying six of the seven proposals as
technically qualified. AVC Construct was one of the six vendors which had submitted
qualified proposals.214 The financial bids were opened on 6 December 2004 by the TOC,
and the Procurement Section prepared an Abstract of Bids.215 The Engineering Section
and ICAO reviewed the abstract and submitted their final evaluation noting several
questions for the other vendors but recommending AVC Construct as the lowest
technically qualified bidder on 20 December 2004.216
168. On 31 January 2005, a letter was sent from the CPO, Mr. Buxey to each of the six
vendors informing them that there were a number of technical and financial queries and
requesting a BAFO.217 The Task Force did not find any documentation requesting the
BAFO or any rationale for it. However, on 14 February 2005, a request for BAFO on the
Bunia runway was sent to each of the six technically qualified vendors asking for
clarification regarding certain issues and a new price offer as a result of some changes in
the original work items to be submitted by 23 February 2005.218 All six companies
submitted their BAFO proposals on 23 February 2005 and the proposals were sent to the
Engineering and Transportation Unit for another technical review.219 Based on the
Abstract of Bids for the BAFO, AVC Construct was the lowest bidder that met the
technical qualifications.220
169. On 15 April 2005 the case was presented to the LCC. The LCC approved the
contract to AVC Construct as the technically qualified lowest cost proposal.221 The case
was forwarded to the HCC on 28 June 2005 and the proposed contract award to AVC
Construct was approved.222 The contract was signed by MONUC on 29 July 2005 for
US$5,493,980.223
170. On 30 November 2005, Staff Member 4, the then OIC of the Procurement
Section, recorded in a note to file that a staff member had told her that Company

213
    Bernard Pennel memorandum to Martin Buxey (18 November 2004).
214
    Bruce McCarron interoffice memorandum to Martin Buxey (26 November 2004). The first six
proposals were received in Kinshasa and sent to Engineering on the 22 Nov while the 1 proposal received
in Kampala was not forwarded to procurement in Kinshasa until the 24 November 2004 for a total of seven
proposals.
215
    Bernard Pennel memorandum to Martin Buxey (6 December 2004) (concerning the bid opening); Martin
Buxey memorandum to Bruce McCarron (8 December 2004).
216
    Bruce McCarron memorandum to Martin Buxey (20 December 2004) (concerning evaluation of
financial proposals).
217
    Martin Buxey letters to vendors (31 January 2005).
218
    RFP no. TEN/MON/04-068, Request for Best and Final Offer (14 February 2005).
219
    RFP no. TEN/MON/04/068, Opening of Sealed Bids (23 February 2005); Martin Buxey memorandum
to Bruce McCarron (15 March 2005) (concerning evaluation of additional technical information received
through BAFO for RFP no. TEN/MON/04-068).
220
    RFP no. TEN/MON/04-068, Best and Final Offer Abstract of Bids (undated).
221
    LCC Minutes Meeting no. MONUC/007/2005 (15 April 2005).
222
    HCC Minutes Meeting no. HCC/05/39 (28 June 2005).
223
    Contract no. MON/CON/05-075 between MONUC and AVC Construct.


                                                                                                   PAGE 35


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Representative 12, a MONUC contractor whose company AVC Construct had been
awarded the contract for the Rehabilitation of the Bunia Airfield Project, had informed
her that Subject 1 had approached him during the bidding exercise and asked for fifteen
percent of the contract price, amounting to US$824,097 in return for ensuring that AVC
Construct was awarded the contract. Subject 1 had told the vendor that he did not solicit
the money for himself but on behalf of his "Chief."224
171. By interoffice memorandum dated 5 December 2005, Staff Member 4 reported
the allegations to the Chief Resident Investigator, adding that the staff member later
stated that the amount requested by Subject 1 was US$150,000.225
172. When interviewed by the Task Force, Staff Member 4 confirmed this information
and stated that she had requested Company Representative 12 to submit a written
complaint, which he did. However, the written complaint did not contain the same
detailed and specific information previously reported to the staff member.226
173. Staff Member 4 stated that the contract with AVC Construct had later been
cancelled due to the company's mobilization and performance problems.227
174. The Task Force interviewed a confidential witness ("CW-1"). In CW-1's
interview with the Task Force on 21 February 2007, CW-1 confirmed that Company
Representative 12 had approached CW-1 when the latter came back from leave, after the
case was presented to the LCC. Company Representative 12 informed CW-1 that Subject
1 had invited Company Representative 12 to Subject 1's house and had told him that if he
wanted "everything to go smoothly" with the contract he should pay fifteen percent of the
contract value for his "cooperation" claiming again that the money was for his "Chief."228
175. During the conversation, Company Representative 12 further alleged that another
contractor "SoTraBen," who was awarded a contract for the Rehabilitation of the Bukavu
runway ("the Bukavu contract"), an airfield in the northeast of the country, had also been
asked for payments by Subject 1.229
176. Company Representative 12, in his interview with the Task Force on 4 May 2007,
confirmed that during the time of the bidding exercise for the Bunia contract, he was
called by Subject 1 who invited him to his house. Company Representative 12 provided
a detailed description of the location, stating that Subject 1 lived in an apartment on the
second floor of a house off of Avenue de l'Huillerie, close to the street leading to the
Church of Fatima.230 The meeting took place in a small salon furnished with carpets and

224
    Staff Member 4 note-to-file (30 November 2005) (concerning allegations of improper conduct by
procurement staff).
225
    Staff Member 4 memorandum to Bernard Brun (5 December 2005).
226
    Staff Member 4 interview (18 April 2007). Staff Member 4 informed the Task Force that she did not
keep a copy of the letter. Id.
227
    Id.
228
    CW-1 interview (21 February 2007).
229
    For further details on the Bukavu contract, see Section VIII.E.4.
230
     Company Representative 12 interview (4 May 2007). Company Representative 10 in his interview with
the Task Force of 4 May 2007 confirmed that Subject 1 lived in an apartment near the Fatima Church. The


                                                                                                   PAGE 36


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


in the presence of Subject 1's wife and two children around the age of ten, whom Subject
1 chased into the kitchen, as they were very noisy.231
177. During the meeting, Subject 1 told Company Representative 12 that he could
"arrange" his problems and, without specifying an amount, made it clear that he was
requesting monetary payment. He claimed that he did not request the money for himself
but on behalf of his "Chief" whose identity he did not specify. He further told Company
Representative 12 that "we are the ones who are deciding the case; it's in our hands."232
178. Company Representative 12 stated that he did not understand how Subject 1 could
offer his "assistance," as Subject 4 and Ms. Renois were the procurement officials in
charge of the Bunia contract and Subject 1 was not even involved in the process.233
179. Company Representative 12 stated that he refused to do as requested by Subject 1,
but was called by Subject 1 at least four or five times afterward, insisting that they meet
once again at his house. Company Representative 12 refused to meet with him again and
reported the incident to a United Nations staff member.234
180. In his interview of 16 May 2007 when presented with the investigative details
found by the Task Force, Subject 1 denied the accusations.235
181. Subject 1 stated that he was only the case officer for the first bid which did not
succeed and in which AVC Construct did not even participate. AVC Construct became
involved in the second bid, when he was no longer responsible for the case.236
182. When asked if he knew Company Representative 12, Subject 1 stated that he
knew a representative from AVC Construct whose name he purported to not be able to
recall. He stated that he had never been in touch with the company and had only met the
representative twice--once at the airport and another time at one of MONUC's premises.
He said that he was able to recall that the gentleman had called him once to ask "some
questions," but stated that he referred him to his colleague, Ms. Renois, as he was no
longer the case officer.237
183. It was only after the Task Force informed Subject 1 that it had information that he
had invited and met with an AVC Construct representative at his apartment that Subject 1
stated that "he could now recall that the gentleman had called him and had said he was
near his house and wanted to talk with him."238



Task Force note-to-file (4 May 2007) (regarding the Task Force's interview with Company Representative
10).
231
    Company Representative 12 interview (4 May 2007).
232
    Id.
233
    Id.
234
    Id.
235
    Subject 1 interview (16 May 2007).
236
    Id.
237
    Id.
238
    Id.


                                                                                                   PAGE 37


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


184. As it was "his tradition not to decline," he invited him in and did not see any harm
in doing so as he was not involved in the contract.239 Subject 1 further stated that it was
the gentleman himself who wanted to discuss the contract, seeking out additional contract
information. Subject 1 insisted that he neither asked for money or percentages nor offered
his assistance in getting the Bunia contract.240
185. Although the Task Force did not find indications that Subject 1 had interfered
with the contract award for Bunia or was the responsible case officer for the second bid,
it is clear that Subject 1 had access to the case files as well as relevant information
regarding the bid that could have been used to request payments from a vendor.

4.      Soci�t� de Transport de Bens Sprl.
186. Soci�t� de Transport de Bens Sprl. ("SoTraBen"), a Kinshasa-based civil
engineering company, commenced its business in the DRC in 1981.241 In March 2005
SoTraBen was awarded a contract for the Rehabilitation of the Bukavu airfield, another
airport in the East of the DRC ("the Bukavu contract") for a total amount of US$5.5
million.242 The contract was cancelled by MONUC due to nonperformance of the
contractor in September 2006.243
187.    The responsible case officer for the procurement process was again Subject 1.244
188. Ms. Klopp, in her report to Mr. Bernard Brun of 5 December 2005, reported
information on kickbacks being paid to Subject 2 by SoTraBen in exchange for his
assistance in getting the Bukavu contract.245
189. Company Representative 12 who supposedly was the source of the allegation, in
his interview with the Task Force related that Company Representative 13, General
Manager of SoTraBen once told him that AVC Construct had problems with their
contract because they "didn't have a friend in MONUC." On the other hand, he,
Company Representative 13, knew how things worked and that one could not get a
contract without following "things this way."246
190. In her interview with the Task Force, Mr. Klopp related that there were persistent
rumors about Subject 1 and the airfield contracts.247 While he was taken off the Bunia
contract in August 2004 due to concerns about his involvement in kickback payments for
the airfield contracts, he remained in charge of the Bukavu contract. Although Ms.

239
    Id
240
    Id.
241
    Company Representative 13 interview (4 May 2007).
242
    Contract no. CON/MON/05-007 between the United Nations and SoTraBen (20 January 2005) (signed
by Mr. Buxey).
243
    Barbara Klopp memorandum to Company Representative 13 (7 September 2006).
244
    List of Procurement Contracts From 2004 to February 2007 provided to the Task Force by MONUC
procurement section.
245
    Barbara Klopp memorandum to Bernard Brun (5 December 2005).
246
    Company Representative 12 interview (4 May 2007).
247
    Staff Member 4 interview (18 April 2007).


                                                                                                   PAGE 38


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Klopp intended to move him from the remaining aviation projects in March 2006, she
was advised in a conversation with OIOS to keep him in place until he was proven guilty
by an investigation.248 Although she was never able to identify any concrete evidence, in
a note to file dated 30 March 2006, Ms. Klopp raised concerns about Subject 1
"aggressively" following up on payments to SoTraBen and noted in a postscript that even
while she was writing this note to file, Subject 1 had come into her office and "said that
he was following up with Finance on whether SoTraBen had yet received its payment."
Since the payments could not be processed the same day, he wanted Ms. Klopp "to call
Finance to get this expedited."249
191. Staff Member 15, Deputy Chief of MONUC's Engineering Section, confirmed
that Subject 1 demonstrated an unusual interest in the Bukavu contract, as Subject 1 had
called him on several occasions to find out the results of their tests, although he was no
longer the case officer and had been taken off the case.250
192. Staff Member 10, procurement clerk at MONUC, told the Task Force that she
once witnessed an incident when she was at a local restaurant by the name
"Savarnana."251 Staff Member 10 overheard Company Representative 13, who was
sitting at the next table to her, saying "that he had Subject 1 on the inside who gave him
information so that he could win the contract."252 Staff Member 10 could not recall the
exact date but stated that it was shortly after the Bukavu contract was awarded to
SoTraBen.253
193. Company Representative 13, as well as SoTraBen's other representative
Company Representative 14, both denied the allegations that they had paid money to
Subject 1 to win the contract.254 Both described Subject 1 and Subject 4 as very helpful
and cooperative.255 Company Representative 13 then stated that Subject 1 had even
insisted that they had to lower their prices. He stated that after SoTraBen submitted the
first proposal for US$5.8 million, Subject 1 called him and told him that he should lower
the price to US$5.5 million.256
194. SoTraBen, however, enjoyed a reputation of engaging in corrupt business
practices and is known for achieving contracts through bribery.257 In fact, later during the
conversation, Company Representative 14 bluntly admitted that the company bribed
another person involved in the Bukavu project. He related that Mr. Benoit Mankazu,
staff member of ICAO, at the end of October 2005 requested a monthly payment of

248
    Id.; Barbara Klopp note-to-file (30 March 2006) (concerning her telephone discussion with Chief OIOS
Investigator).
249
    Id.
250
    Staff Member 15 interview (11 May 2007).
251
    Staff Member 10 interview (8 May 2007).
252
    Id.
253
    Id.
254
    Company Representative 13 and Company Representative 14 interview (4 May 2007).
255
    Id.
256
    Id.
257
    See, e.g., Company Representative 12 interview (4 May 2007).


                                                                                                   PAGE 39


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


US$10,000 in exchange for his assistance "with the contract." Company Representative
14 stated that SoTraBen refused to pay the full amount and had "only" given Mr.
Mankanzu US$3,000.258
195. Subject 1 in his interview with the Task Force stated that he had nothing further to
discuss with regard to the SoTraBen award. He had fought hard for the success of the
case. Subject 1 stated that he had never contacted Mr. Houthhoofd asking him to reduce
his price and denied doing anything to influence the process or to favor SoTraBen.259
Subject 1 told the Task Force that if Company Representative 13 had said "he had a man
on the inside who gave him information so that he could win the contract," he must have
been lying.260

5.      Payments to Vendors Described as Repayment of "Loans"
196. The Task Force's review of forensic evidence revealed that several bank transfers
were made from Subject 1's UNFCU account to Belgian bank accounts of the companies
UAC and Panache. Both are local Congolese companies doing business with the United
Nations. The investigation was subsequently extended to Subject 1's relationship with
these contractors, and the circumstances surrounding these payments.
197. It should be noted at the outset that regardless of the purpose of these payments,
the fact that they were made in and of itself violates a number of rules and regulations of
the Organization, including financial, procurement and staff rules.

      a. UAC Sprl.
198. On 6 June 2003, Subject 1 transferred an amount of US$839 to the bank account
of Company Representative 15 at Banque Belgolaise, Belgium.261
199. The investigation identified that Company Representative 15 is the owner of
UAC, a local Congolese electronic and furniture store that provides furniture, air
conditioning units, videos and other types of electronic goods.262
200. In his interview with the Task Force, Company Representative 15 could not
initially recall facts about the bank transfer. However, upon review of the ledger account
statement, Company Representative 15 located the payment and stated that the money
had been given in exchange for some items which Subject 1 had purchased in 2001.263
According to Company Representative 15, although Subject 1 had paid the money back
in 2003, it had taken a very long time, close to two years, for him to pay his outstanding
balance.264 Company Representative 15 added that they normally did not lend money to


258
    Company Representative 13 and Company Representative 14 interview (4 May 2007).
259
    Subject 1 interview (16 May 2007).
260
    Id.
261
    UNFCU, Subject 1 wire transfer request to Company Representative 15 (6 June 2003).
262
    Company Representative 15 and Company Representative 9 interviews (8 May 2007).
263
    Id.
264
    Id.


                                                                                                   PAGE 40


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


customers unless they were customers with longstanding relationships or large
customers.265
201. According to MONUC procurement records, UAC was issued fourteen purchase
orders for approximately US$195,000.266 A review of the procurement files did not
identify that Subject 1 was involved in procurement exercises carried out with UAC.267

      b. Panache Sprl.
202. On 20 January 2004, Subject 1 transferred an amount of US$1,000 to the bank
account of a Company Representative 16, again at Banque Belgolaise, Belgium.268
203. Company Representative 16 is the owner of Panache, a local Kinshasa plumbing
company that provides tiles and other construction material and equipment.269 Company
Representative 16 confirmed that he knew Subject 1 through his wife who was friends
with Subject 1's wife.270 Company Representative 16 stated that he did not have a
personal relationship with Subject 1 nor was he responsible for any of his contracts.271
204. Company Representative 16 confirmed that Subject 1 would shop in his store,
usually for small items, and confirmed that Subject 1 had borrowed approximately
US$1,000 on two separate occasions. Company Representative 16 further confirmed that
Subject 1 had paid him back via bank transfers to his account in Belgium.272
205. According to MONUC procurement records, Panache was issued four purchase
orders for approximately US$88,381.273 A review of the procurement files did not
identify that Subject 1 was involved in the procurement exercises with Panache.274
206. In his interview with the Task Force, Subject 1 initially denied ever having
borrowed money from any vendor.275 When presented with the bank transfers to
Company Representative 16's account, he then stated that he recalled having to borrow
money for medication from Company Representative 16 which had been paid back. He



265
    Company Representative 15 and Company Representative 9 interview (8 May 2007).
266
    UAC purchase orders nos. 1MON 200315; 2MON-200329; 3KIN-200031; 3KIN-200192; 3KIN-
200198; 4Kin-200689; 4KIN-200615; 5KIN-200171; 5KIN-200283; 6KIN-200281; 6KIN-200574; 6KIN-
200925; 7KIN-200368; 7KIN-200470.
267
    UAC purchase orders nos. 1MON 200315; 2MON-200329; 3KIN-200031; 3KIN-200192; 3KIN-
200198; 4Kin-200689; 4KIN-200615; 5KIN-200171; 5KIN-200283; 6KIN-200281; 6KIN-200574; 6KIN-
200925; 7KIN-200368; 7KIN-200470.
268
    UNFCU, Subject 1 wire transfer request to Company Representative 16 and 18 (20 January 2004).
269
    Company Representative 16 interview (7 May 2007).
270
    Subject 1 interview note (8 March 2007).
271
    Id.
272
    Id.
273
    Panache purchase orders nos. 3KIN-200323; 3KIN-200709; 5KIN-200537; 5KIN-200889.
274
    Panache purchase orders nos. 1MON 200315; 2MON-200329; 3KIN-200031; 3KIN-200192; 3KIN-
200198; 4Kin-200689; 4KIN-200615; 5KIN-200171; 5KIN-200283; 6KIN-200281; 6KIN-200574; 6KIN-
200925; 7KIN-200368; 7KIN-200470.
275
    Subject 1 interview (16 May 2007).


                                                                                                   PAGE 41


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
    INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
    STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


    also stated that he had also borrowed money in 2001 from UAC for a washing
    machine.276 Subject 1 could not explain why it had taken him two years to repay UAC.277

    6.       Transport Fluvial et Commerce
    207. The investigations revealed that Subject 1 solicited, received, and accepted cash
    payments of US$10,000 from a company named Transport Fluvial et Commerce
    ("TFCE") in return for his assistance in getting contracts for the provision of boat charter
    services for MONUC's riverine operations.
    208. These payments are discussed in detail in Section IX below, which focuses on
    TFCE's payments to Subject 3, Subject 4, and Subject 1.
    209. Subject 1 was notified of the Task Force' findings on 19 June 2007. His written
    response of 28 June 2007 is attached as Annex A to this Report.

IX. MONUC BOAT CONTRACTS: PAYMENTS TO
    SUBJECT 2, SUBJECT 3, AND SUBJECT 4
 A. BACKGROUND
    210. MONUC's riverine operations primarily consist of transporting humanitarian,
    military, and cargo convoys on the Congo River. In order to fulfill its obligations,
    MONUC requires contractual services for the charter of vessels and the lease of loading
    pier and dock handling facilities for their pushers and barges.
    211. According to the records available to the Task Force, from 1 July 2002 until 30
    June 2007 alone, a total of over US$12.4 million in boat contracts was awarded to seven
    local Congolese companies:278

     Table A: MONUC Pusher and Barges Contracts and Purchase Orders (2001 to 2007)

                Vendor Name            No. of Purchase Orders and Contracts           Total Value (USD)
          Andre Mercantei                 3 Purchase Orders and 1 Contract               $       185,000
          Domaine de la Palmeraie        18 Purchase Orders and 2 Contracts                     2,624,520
          Maison Mukoie & Fils           31 Purchase Orders and 3 Contracts                     3,408,000
          Sacor                          10 Purchase Orders and 2 Contracts                       765,000
          Sonyho                         19 Purchase Orders and 2 Contracts                     1,039,879
          Transfluco                     21 Purchase Orders and 3 Contracts                     2,060,229
          TFCE                           32 Purchase Orders and 3 Contracts                     2,406,239
                                           Total                                          $    12,488,867



    276
        Id.
    277
        Id.
    278
        Report on Purchase Orders/Contrast for Pushers and Barges with Statistics (15 June 2007).


                                                                                                       PAGE 42


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
   INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
   STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
   ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


B. ALLEGATIONS
   212. On 7 April 2004, Ms. Shane, the then CPO, sent an interoffice memorandum to
   Mr. Jaque Grinberg, MONUC's Chief of Staff, reporting information regarding the case
   officer handling the rental of pushers, barges, and fast boats that were used by MONUC
   to transport cargo and military.279 On 10 April 2004, this memorandum was forwarded
   by the then Director of Administration, Mr. Marcel Savard, to the Chief Resident
   Auditor, Mr. William Petersen, requesting an investigation into these allegations.280
   213. In her conversation with Mr. Petersen of 13 April 2004, Ms. Shane specified the
   allegations and reported that:
           (i)      Subject 3 was alleged to have asked for US$70,000 from TFCE;
          (ii)   Subject 2 was alleged to have asked for US$50,000 from TFCE and
   possibly another company named AGETRAF; and
            (iii) Subject 1 was alleged to have been receiving money from Safricas to
   facilitate the processing of payments due.281
   214. The case was referred to OIOS Investigations Division on 15 April 2004 and a
   preliminary investigation was conducted.282
   215. In November 2005, Mr. Martin Bentz, Chief of General Services, in a
   conversation with OIOS investigators further reported concerns about certain staff
   members having luxurious life standards that did not reflect their earnings as United
   Nations employees. Two of the individuals reported in that context were Subject 2 and
   Subject 4. No further information was provided.283
   216. In the course of its investigation, the Task Force received information from
   several sources that procurement staff members supposedly "own" some of the boats
   chartered by MONUC.284
   217. On 1 May 2007, it was reported to the Task Force by CW-3 that Subject 2, OIC of
   the Procurement Section, requested and received cash payments from Company
   Representative 4, owner of a company named Maison Mukoie Fils.285

C. MAISON MUKOIE FILS PAYMENTS TO SUBJECT 2
   218. Maison Mukoie Fils ("MMF"), a Kinshasa-based company, has provided charter
   services for pushers, barges, and fast boats to MONUC since 2002.286 Allegations of

   279
       Judi Shane interoffice memorandum to Mr. Jaque Grinberg (7 April 2004) (Confidential Information to
   Investigate).
   280
       Marcel Savard memorandum to William Peterson (10 April 2004).
   281
       William Petersen, Memorandum of discussion (13 April 2004).
   282
       ID/OIOS case no. 125/04.
   283
       ID/OIOS case no. 615/05.
   284
       Company Representative 6 interview (17 May 2007) Company Representative 5 interview (13 May
   2007); CW-2 interview (8 May 2007).
   285
       CW-3 interview (1 March 2007).


                                                                                                      PAGE 43


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


payments made by MMF to the Procurement Section's staff members in exchange for
contract awards, contract maintenance, and facilitating of invoices are widespread in
Kinshasa.
219. Company Representative 3, the former Director of F�d�ration d'Entreprises
Congolaises ("FEC"), stated that although none of MONUC's vendors would ever admit
it to external investigators, it was known in Kinshasa that an average of ten percent of the
contract value had to be paid in bribes. He offered up dealing with MMF as an example
and stated that of the US$20,000 to US$25,000 of the company's monthly charge for the
charter of boats, on average, US$5,000 had to be paid to someone in MONUC.287
Company Representative 3, however, was not able to provide any further information.
220. From 2 July 2002 through 30 June 2007, purchase orders totaling US$3,408,000
were issued to MMF:288




286
    Company Representative 4 interview (3 May 2007).
287
    Company Representative 3 interview (11 May 2007).
288
    Report on Purchase Orders/Contract for Pushers and Barges with Statistics (15 June 2007). There were
three contracts awarded and four amendments to extend the contract period. Id.


                                                                                                   PAGE 44


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


 Table B: MMF purchase orders (1 July 2002 to 30 June 2007)




1.      Personal and Professional Background of Subject 2
221. Subject 2 was born on 7 November 1968 in Burkina Faso.289 He is not married
and has one twelve-year old son.290 Subject 2 holds a masters degree in business law and
a post-masters degree in insurance.291
222. Subject 2 began working for the United Nations as a procurement assistant in
UNAMIR in February 1994 and was appointed as a United Nations volunteer from April
1995 to 1996.292 He became a procurement officer in 1996 for the International Criminal


289
    Subject 2 Personnel Action Form.
290
    United Nations Designation of Beneficiary Form (24 March 2003).
291
    Subject 2 interview (21 February 2007).
292
    Id.


                                                                                                   PAGE 45


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Tribunal for Rwanda located in Arusha, Tanzania, until he was transferred to MONUC in
March 2003.293
223. Upon his arrival at MONUC, he became the head of the Contracts Unit and then
the Supply Service Unit ("SSU") in 2004.294 He was promoted to Chief of the SSU in
2005 and upon the departure of the former OIC of the Procurement Section, he was
appointed as OIC from October 2006 until the arrival of the new CPO in May 2007.295
224.    Subject 2's current contract expires on 30 June 2007.296

2.      Investigative details
225. On 8 May 2007, a confidential witness ("CW-2") reported that sometime in 2004,
when Company Representative 4, the owner of MMF, came to the office to collect a bid
for leasing barges, he told CW-2 that "it was enough now," in that people from MONUC
were constantly asking for money.297 He further stated that he "was tired of giving
money and wasn't going to pay anymore," and added that he would make a complaint to
the Director of Administration.298 Company Representative 4 did not name the people
requesting bribes and CW-2 did not know which office Company Representative 4 had
just come from, as CW-2 could not see the other offices from CW-2's location.299
226. In an interview with the Task Force, another confidential witness ("CW-3")
reported that one day in June or July 2005, shortly after the contract for the long-term
charter of pushers, barges, and fast boats was awarded to MMF, Subject 2 was heard
talking on the phone with Company Representative 4 requesting money from him.300
227. As Subject 2 saw CW-3 passing by and realized that CW-3 overheard the
conversation, he came to the desk of CW-3 shortly thereafter and claimed that he
(Subject 2) had only asked Company Representative 4 to lend him some money. CW-3
stated to the Task Force that during his phone conversation Subject 2 did not mention
anything about a loan but simply requested the money.301
228. The Task Force further learned that Subject 4, who was under Subject 2's
supervision, had confided to CW-3 that Company Representative 4 told CW-3 that
Subject 2 would call him every time he needed money and ask for payments.302




293
    Id.
294
    Subject 2 interviews (15 May and 21 February 2007).
295
    Id. (Ms. Vevine Stamp arrived as the new CPO in May 2007 while the Task Force investigators were at
the mission).
296
    United Nations Personnel Action Form (1 October 2006).
297
    CW-2 interview (8 May 2007).
298
    Id.
299
    Id.
300
    CW-3 interview (1 March 2007)
301
    CW-3 interview (1 March 2007).
302
    Id.


                                                                                                   PAGE 46


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


229. In his interview with the Task Force of 11 May 2007, Subject 4 denied being
aware of "anything of that kind" and insisted that Company Representative 4 never spoke
with him about payments to be made in order to receive or maintain contracts.303
230. In February 2007, the Task Force seized Subject 2's work computer and copied
the hard drives and emails. An evaluation of the files identified that on Wednesday, 3
August 2005, a file was created on Subject 2' computer entitled "Dc26.doc." The file
was found in the computer's recycle bin and contained an instruction for a bank transfer
of US$7,000 to be made from Subject 2's number account at Cr�dit Lyonnais, Lyon, to
MMF's bank account at Banque Belgolaise, Brussels.304 The figure below shows that the
file was created in August 2005 on Subject 2's computer:




 Figure: Document properties for "Dc26[174491].doc" (3 August 2005) (recovered from
 Subject 2's office computer at the United Nations)

231. Company Representative 4 in his interview with the Task Force of 3 May 2007
vehemently denied having ever been asked for bribes by a MONUC staff member.
Additionally, he denied ever having offered or given money or any other tangible benefit
to any MONUC staff member. Although he admitted that corruption was widespread in
the DRC, he stated that he had never heard of such problems occurring with regard to
MONUC.305
232. When asked about Subject 2, Company Representative 4 initially did not seem to
remember the name, but then later stated that he knew Subject 2 and that they had a
purely professional relationship.306
233. However, after repeated inquiries by the Task Force, Company Representative 4
recalled that Subject 2 had once called him and "asked for US$7,000 cash for a car, a
Mercedes, he wanted to buy." He stated that Subject 2 did not have the money on hand

303
    Subject 4 interview (11 May 2007).
304
    Subject 2 computer file, 155-Con- Subject 2\Part_1\NONAME-NTFS\RECYCLER\S-1-5-21-
1845599742-3789158217-1995298939-2807\Dc26.doc (3 August 2005) (containing Subject 2's payment
order).
305
    Company Representative 4 interview (3 May 2007).
306
    Id.


                                                                                                   PAGE 47


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


for the purchase, but immediately repaid Company Representative 4 via a bank transfer to
his Belgian bank account.307 Company Representative 4 stated to the Task Force that this
incident did not come to mind when first asked about the payments made to procurement
staff because he did not "even consider it to be a loan."308 He did not respond to the Task
Force's question whether it was normal business practice for him to lend such amounts of
money to business partners he hardly knew.309
234. The Task Force requested Company Representative 4 to provide comprehensive
documentation of the company's contract files with MONUC, including all supporting
material as well as all bank transactions pertaining to MMF's bank accounts, particularly
those at Banque Belgolaise, from 2002 to the present. Company Representative 4 stated
that it would take a while to prepare the documents because he had sent most of the
documents to Belgium for safekeeping due to the instable security situation in
Kinshasa.310
235. Upon repeated requests by the Task Force, a second meeting was scheduled for 13
May 2007 where it was agreed that Company Representative 4 would submit the
requested bank statements.311 When Company Representative 4 did not show up, he was
contacted by the Task Force. He responded by saying that he would send someone to
deliver the requested documents.312 Shortly thereafter a gentleman showed up with a
piece of paper where the name "Subject 2" and an amount of US$7,000 were listed. No
further information as to the bank details, account number or date of transaction was
listed on the paper. The man refused to provide a copy of the document to the Task
Force.313 As of today, no further documentation has been provided to the Task Force by
Company Representative 4.
236. In his first interview with the Task Force, Subject 2 stated that during his thirteen
years of procurement experience, on occasion, vendors would try to approach him with
offers of payments. Some were explicit offers while others were more subtle.
Regardless, he maintained that such offers were always rejected by him.314
237. A request for voluntary financial disclosure was sent to Subject 2 on 10 May
2007. Under paragraph 7, information was sought as to whether Subject 2 "received,
directly or indirectly, anything of value, greater than US$20 from any vendor doing
business with, or seeking to do business with, the United Nations at any time."315




307
    Id.
308
    Id.
309
    Id.
310
    Id.
311
    Id.
312
    Id.
313
    Id.
314
    Subject 2 interview (21 February 2007).
315
    The Task Force financial disclosure request to Subject 2 (10 April 2007).


                                                                                                   PAGE 48


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


238. In his response to the Task Force of 23 April 2007, Subject 2 denied having ever
received any such benefit from any United Nations vendor.316 Subject 2's response is
provided below:




 Figure: Subject 2 letter to the Task Force (23 April 2007)

239. When Subject 2 was re-interviewed by the Task Force on 15 May 2007, he
reiterated that he had never requested nor received anything of value from any United
Nations vendor.317 Only when Subject 2 was presented with the bank transfer for
US$7,000 to MMF did he recall an incident "involving a car."318 He stated that in 2005
he decided to buy a car. The vendor of the car insisted that he make an "immediate cash
payment" of US$6,700 in order to purchase the car. According to Subject 2, his credit
card limit for withdrawals was US$2,500 and he could have only obtained another
US$3,000 from the Congolese Rawbank, "but they charged a 10% commission."319
Although Subject 2 could have withdrawn a total amount of US$5,500 towards the
purchase of the car, he had spoken with Company Representative 4 about his difficulties
in obtaining the required cash amount.320 According to Subject 2, Company
Representative 4 offered to give him an advance but he "stated that he could only accept
it if it wouldn't bother him too much."321 After thinking over the situation, Subject 2 said
that he felt there was no other possible solution if he wanted to meet the deadline given
by the vendor for payment.322 One morning on a weekend, he decided to call Company
Representative 4 and ask for the money. Company Representative 4 was asked to leave
the money for him in an envelope at the Procurement Section, for which he would
immediately execute a bank transfer to pay the money back.323 Subject 2 insisted that
this was the only incident of its kind.324 When asked why he did not disclose this
payment in his letter to the Task Force, Subject 2 stated that he "didn't consider it as
money he has received because it was simply a cash advance under special
circumstances."325
240. Subject 2 further stated that he had "nothing to do with the contracts with MMF"
and that these contracts were already in place before he arrived at MONUC.326

316
    Subject 2 letter to the Task Force (23 April 2007).
317
    Subject 2 interview (15 May 2007).
318
    Id.
319
    Id.
320
    Id.
321
    Id.
322
    Id.
323
    Id.
324
    Id.
325
    Subject 2 interview (15 May 2007) (containing Subject 2's handwritten comments).
326
    Id.


                                                                                                   PAGE 49


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
   INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
   STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
   ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


   241. Subject 2 provided the Task Force with a copy of a bank statement from Cr�dit
   Lyonnais dated 31 August 2005.327




    Figure: Cr�dit Lyonnais, Subject 2 bank statement (31 August 2005)

   242. The document indicates that on 10 August 2007 an amount of 5,663 was
   transferred from Subject 2's account.328 According to Subject 2, this is the bank transfer
   made to Company Representative 4 for repayment of the cash advance. The Task Force
   was not able to corroborate the information since the bank statement does not contain the
   bank account number of the transfer recipient.
   243. Subject 2 was notified of the Task Force' findings on 19 June 2007. His written
   response of 28 June 2007 is attached as Annex B to this Report.

D. TFCE PAYMENTS TO SUBJECT 3, SUBJECT 4, AND SUBJECT 1
   244. TFCE is a Kinshasa-based company that has been providing pushers, barges,
   fastboats, and pier facilities to MONUC since 2001 ("the boat contracts").329
   245. Based on the information provided to the Task Force, thirty-two purchase orders
   totaling an amount of at least US$2,406,239 had been issued to TFCE from 1 July 2002
   to 31 December 2006 for the boat contracts alone.330




   327
       Cr�dit Lyonnais, Subject 2 bank statement (31 August 2005).
   328
       Id.
   329
       CW-4 interview (1 March 2007).
   330
       Report on Purchase Orders/Contract for Pushers and Barges with Statistics (15 June 2007). There were
   three contracts awarded and four amendments to extend the contract period. A total of thirty-two purchase
   orders were issued from 2002 through 2006).


                                                                                                      PAGE 50


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


 Table C: TFCE Purchase Orders (1 July 2002 to 31 December 2006)




246. According to the information obtained during the investigation, prior to 2002
barges and pushers were rented on an ad hoc basis at prices above the average market
price.331 As the Procurement Section could not access the procurement system that had
been in place prior to 2002, these contracts were not subject to the Task Force's
investigation.332
247. When MONUC began chartering pushers and barges, TFCE additionally provided
docking facilities. While the first two months of payments were provided in a lump sum
of US$7,500 per month, TFCE was awarded a one-year contract for pier facilities from



331
      Staff Member 14 interview (17 May 2007).
332
      Staff Member 12 email to the Task Force (20 June 2007).


                                                                                                   PAGE 51


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


January 2002 to December 2002 at a monthly cost of US$14,000.333 The contract was
amended in November 2003 to extend the term of the contract for another year from 1
January 2003 to 31 December 2003 at a reduced monthly rate of US$12,000.334

1.      Professional and Personal Background of Subject 3
248. Subject 3 was born on 3 October 1949 in Jamaica, but currently resides in Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida.335 She has one son who lives in Miami, Florida.336 According to
Subject 3's curriculum vitae, she has over twenty years of experience in various phases
of hospitality, construction, and transportation industries, including leadership,
procurement, budgeting, and customer service experience.337
249. Subject 3 began working for the Organisation as a United Nations volunteer in
housekeeping in Somalia, UNOSOM on 5 April 1994, and then was transferred to the
procurement unit as a procurement assistant.338 Although Subject 3 told the Task Force
she worked at UNOSOM until sometime in 1995, her United Nations Personnel Data
Form indicates that she worked only until 19 December 1994.339 She left UNOSOM to
return to the private sector in Jamaica and Florida between 1995 until 1999, and
subsequently returned to the United Nations as a procurement assistant for the United
Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo ("UNMIK") on 30 September
1999.340
250. Subject 3 was transferred to MONUC's Procurement Section in October 2001 and
has worked as a procurement assistant in MONUC for the last five and a half years.341
She is currently a procurement assistant in the Supply and Services Unit ("SSU") and
prior to this had worked in the Engineering and Transport Unit.342
251.    Subject 3's current contract expires on 30 June 2007.343

2.      Professional and Personal Background of Subject 4
252. Subject 4 was born on 10 May 1958 in the C�te D'Ivoire.344 He is married and
his wife currently works for the C�te D'Ivoire's embassy in Paris where she lives with

333
    Contract no. CON/MON/02/004 between United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo
and TFCE (20 March 2002).
334
    Amendment no. 1 to Contract no. CON/MON/02/004 (signed 20 November 2003 by Mr. Phillis and 17
November 2004 by Ms. Shane).
335
    United Nations Personnel Data Form (27 October 2001).
336
    Id.; Subject 3 interview (10 May 2007).
337
    Subject 3 Curriculum Vitae (United Nations Personnel Files) (undated).
338
    United Nations Personnel Data Form (27 October 2007); Subject 3 interview (10 May 2007).
339
    Id.
340
    Id.; Subject 3 interview (10 May 2007).
341
    Id.
342
    Id.; MONUC Procurement Section Organizational Chart (undated) (reflecting the organizational
structure as of August 2006).
343
    Subject 3 Personnel Action Notification Administrative (26 June 2006).
344
    Subject 4 Personnel Action Notification Administrative (1 July 2006).


                                                                                                   PAGE 52


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


their two children.345 Subject 4 holds an advanced degree in International Commercial
Law and has a background in Human Resources. Prior to joining the United Nations,
Subject 4 worked for the government in C�te D'Ivoire in supply and contract services.
253. Subject 4 joined the United Nations in September 2000 in MONUC as a contracts
specialist and was the Chief of the Contracts Unit in the Procurement Section. After two
and a half years he took over as Chief of the Purchasing Unit and in 2003 he became a
procurement officer. Subject 4 became Chief of the Engineering and Transportation Unit
in 2005 and served in that capacity until February 2007, when he became the OIC of the
Logistics and Communications Unit.346
254. By the time the investigation had been completed, Subject 4 was expected to be
transferred to the United Nations Mission in Liberia ("UNMIL").

3.       Procurement Responsibilities
255. Subject 3 was assigned case officer responsible for the charter of pushers, barges,
and fast boats upon her arrival at the mission in September 2001 until 2003.347 During
this time Subject 3 issued purchase orders for boat charters valued at over US$9.7 million
dollars:348

Table D: Purchase Orders for Boat Charters Issued by Subject 3

              Vendor               No. of Purchase Orders and Contracts          Total Value (USD)
      Andrew Mercantei                3 Purchase Orders and 1 Contract               $       185,000
      Domaine de la Palmeraie         7 Purchase Orders and 1 Contract                      1,677,780
      MMF                            18 Purchase Orders and 1 Contract                      1,957,000
      Sacor                           3 Purchase Orders and 1 Contract                        640,000
      Sonyho                          8 Purchase Orders and 1 Contract                      1,526,848
      TFCE                           14 Purchase Orders and 1 Contract                      1,919,008
      Transfluco                     11 Purchase Orders and 1 Contract                      1,885,500
                                       Total                                         $      9,791,136

256. Subject 1, although not the formally assigned case officer, participated in the
procurement exercises on several occasions. Ten purchase orders at a total value of more
than US$1 million were issued by Subject 1 from 2001 to 2003.349




345
    Id.; Subject 4 interview (27 February 2007).
346
    Subject 4 interview (27 February 2007).
347
    Staff Member 14 interview (17 May 2007); Subject 2 interview (15 May 2007).
348
    Report on Purchase Orders/Contract for Pushers and Barges with Statistics (15 June 2007) (containing
available buyer information for 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2004).
349
    Id.


                                                                                                   PAGE 53


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Table E: Purchase Orders for Boat Charters Issued by Subject 1

                Vendor                    No. of Purchase Orders              Total Value (USD)
       Domaine de la Palmeraie                3 Purchase Orders                   $        306,420
       MMF                                    3 Purchase Orders                            303,000
       Sacor                                  1 Purchase Orders                             90,000
       TFCE                                   2 Purchase Orders                            258,000
       Transfluco                             1 Purchase Orders                             90,000
                                      Total                                       $      1,047,420

257. As Chief of the Contracts Unit, Subject 4 was responsible for the overall
management of the procurement exercises carried out for the boat contracts under his
supervision.350

4.       Investigative Details
258. In her interview with the Task Force of 7 March 2007, Staff Member 2confirmed
that she had reported to OIOS allegations of procurement staff members demanding and
receiving payments from TFCE.351 She recounted that during her time in Kinshasa she
had met members of Company Representative 2 and Company representative 17's
family, which owns several transportation and construction companies in Kinshasa.
During a social event, Company Representative 2 told Staff Member 2 that he had paid
Subject 1 US$1,000 to get his invoices paid. He also stated that his brother, owner of
TFCE, paid bribes to procurement staff as well.352 Sometime later in 2004, Company
Representative 2's brother, Company Representative 17, met with Staff Member 2 and
told her that prior to his purchase of TFCE, the company had made payments to MONUC
staff in order to get their invoices paid. He did not know who had requested the money
but his manager had informed him of what had happened.353
259. The Task Force contacted Company Representative 2 and his father. In an
interview of 27 February 2007, they stated that they no longer conducted business with
MONUC because of the corruption within the Procurement Section. They stated that
they had been approached by several former MONUC procurement staff members such
as Mr. Faisal Ghanem and Ms. Almaz Ghanem, but neither wanted to provide any further
details about the payments made to other procurement staff members.354 The only
information they were willing to share with the Task Force was that Company




350
    Subject 4 interview (11 May 2007) (stating that he was one of the staff members responsible for the
barges contract).
351
    Staff Member 2 interview (7 March 2007).
352
    Id.
353
    Id.
354
    Company Representative 2 interview (27 February 2007).


                                                                                                   PAGE 54


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Representative 2 felt that if TFCE did not pay the bribes, they would not have received
the contracts.355
260. Company Representative 2 denied having any knowledge of payments or other
benefits made to MONUC procurement staff members, but stated that the process in
which contracts were awarded seem to implicate a system of bribery and favors granted
since often times the contracts awarded did not make economic sense for MONUC.356
Company Representative 2 then explained that MONUC was renting barges for transport
at a fixed price of approximately US$30,000 to US$40,000 per month, which did not
make sense since many of the boats were left at the port unused for months at a time.357
In addition, the boats rented were overpowered for the cargo they were transporting and
therefore cost the Organisation more than US$2,000 per ton for transport while the going
rate for transportation was US$115 per ton.358 Company Representative 2 would only
meet with the Task Force investigators to discuss MONUC's inefficiency, but was not
willing to meet to discuss the issue of bribes.
261. Although Company Representative 2 would not confirm whether TFCE had paid
any money for their contracts, the Task Force was able to interview a confidential witness
("CW-4"), who contradicted Company Representative 2 and admitted that TFCE had, in
fact, paid repeated bribes to procurement staff members of MONUC in the period of
2000 to 2003.
262. CW-4 in confirmed to the Task Force that TFCE had been required to pay bribes
to three individual procurement staff members at MONUC in order to receive and
maintain contracts. CW-4 stated that a procurement official, whose identity CW-4 could
not recall, came to see CW-4 in the latter's office and said, "[Y]ou'll have the contract
but it is necessary to pay commission, if you don't pay the commission you don't get the
contract."359 CW-4 was not able to recall who this MONUC staff member was as it was
over five years ago. CW-4 had informed Company Representative 17 of the incident.
According to CW-4, Company Representative 2 said he was not willing to make the
payments and that they would find a way to get the contract without paying the bribes.
CW-4 then informed the MONUC staff member that TFCE was not willing to make cash
payments but could give the procurement staff benefits such as car rentals or money for
travel and accommodations.360 CW-4 did not state whether this offer was made at the
direction of Company Representative 2.
263. CW-4 then showed the investigators an index card with handwritten notes that
listed the dates and amounts paid to MONUC staff members during the period from 2000




355
    Id.
356
     Company Representative 2 interview (28 February 2007).
357
     Id.
358
     Id.
359
     CW-4 interview (1 March 2007).
360
     Id.


                                                                                                   PAGE 55


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


to 2003.361 The card listed the initials of four different individuals: JC, KM, TM and a
fourth individual.
264. CW-4 explained that "JC" stood for Subject 3, "KM" for Subject 1, and "TM" for
Subject 4. According to CW-4, the fourth individual listed was not a staff member at
MONUC.362
265. CW-4 related to Task Force investigators that all three staff members-- Subject 3,
Subject 4 and Subject 1--came to TFCE's office on different occasions to discuss the
boat contracts.363 During these meetings they would inform CW-4 about pending travels
or other financial issues and make comments such as "I am traveling[,] how about a bon
voyage present."364 CW-4 confirmed that TFCE did not pay each time one of these
individuals visited the office, but when payments were made, they were usually made in
cash.365 CW-4 did not have the impression that the three individuals were colluding,
instead acting independently of one another.366
266. CW-4 confirmed to the Task Force that TFCE made a number of payments to
Subject 3, Subject 4, and Subject 1.
267. According to CW-4, approximately US$40,000 to US$45,000 was requested by
and paid to Subject 3 on several separate occasions. For instance, the Task Force
investigators were able to identify on the index card shown by CW-4 that Subject 3 had
received several payments, including US$5,000 on 13 January and US$22,100 on 30
December, but it was not clear in what year these payments had occurred.367
268. CW-4 stated that US$7,500 was paid to Subject 4 on two separate occasions. The
first time Subject 4 requested US$3,500 for a holiday trip; a second amount of US$2,500
was paid for a car rental in 2003.
269. CW-4 further stated that US$10,000 was paid to Subject 1. According to CW-4,
Subject 1 received payments from TFCE for only one year because he was later
withdrawn from the boat contracts.
270. CW-4 stated that in July 2003, when a new contract for pushers and barges was to
be tendered, Subject 3 came to CW-4's office and requested a payment of US$45,000
from TFCE in order to be awarded the contract. The sum she requested was ten percent
of the proposed contract value of US$450,000. CW-4 told Subject 3 that it was
impossible for TFCE to pay that amount of money but that they were willing to continue
doing small favors like they had in the past. When CW-4 refused to pay as requested by




361
    Id.
362
    Id.
363
    CW-4 interview (1 March 2007).
364
    Id.
365
    Id.
366
    Task Force note-to-file (4 May 2007).
367
    Id. The Task Force investigators recorded this information from the index card during the interview.


                                                                                                   PAGE 56


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Subject 3, CW-4 was informed by Subject 3 that they would not receive the contract and
subsequently TFCE lost the bid for the contract.368
271. It was shortly thereafter when TFCE's problems with MONUC began. When
CW-4 returned from a vacation in September 2003, CW-4 found out that MONUC had
not paid TFCE's outstanding invoices of US$450,000 for the period of July 2003 to
September 2003.369 When CW-4 asked Subject 3 why the invoices had not been paid
during that period, she told CW-4 that the invoices had been lost.370 Subsequently TFCE
hired a lawyer and after several meetings with MONUC's legal advisor and the
Procurement Section, TFCE was paid their outstanding invoices.371
272. The Task Force confirmed that TFCE indeed submitted a termination letter
announcing the cancellation of their contracts with MONUC due to outstanding invoices
since June 2003.372
273. In its meeting of 22 October 2003, the LCC queried why TFCE requested the
termination of their contract and why the Procurement Section had not taken measures to
make partial payments for the services rendered. The LCC further queried why the "non
payment" had never been mentioned by the Procurement Section.373




 Figure: LCC meeting no. MONUC/023/2003 (22 October 2003)

274. On 27 October 200--only after LCC's recommendation--the Procurement
Section requested the processing of seventy percent of TFCE's outstanding invoice:374




368
    Id.
369
    Id.
370
    Id.
371
    Id.
372
    Cabinet Diumula letter Judith Shane (2 September 2003) (entitled "R�siliation des contrats de
collaboration et pr�avis conventionnel").
373
    LCC meeting no. MONUC/023/2003 (22 October 2003).
374
    Judith Shane memorandum to King Amaben (27 October 2003) (Mr. Amaben was MONUC's Chief
Finance Officer).


                                                                                                   PAGE 57


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




 Figure: Judith Shane memorandum to King Amaben (27 October 2003)

275. CW-4 stated that in CW-4's later conversation with Subject 4 regarding TFCE's
contractual problems, the latter told CW-4 that TFCE was too expensive and added,
"[V]ous ne pensez pas � nous"--"you don't think of us."375
276. CW-4 stated that Company Representative 17 had always been fully aware of the
payments as CW-4 would not have done anything without the approval of the chief.376
277. The index card was shown to the investigators to review, but CW-4 refused to
provide a copy of the card to the Task Force. According to CW-4, it was Company
Representative 17 who had instructed CW-4 not to provide a copy of the document
showing payments to the Task Force as Company Representative 17 had concerns that
TFCE would face serious problems with their business in the DRC if it was known that
they were providing information to investigators. Although they both wanted to help,
they were concerned with what would happen after the Task Force investigators left.377
278. During the second mission to MONUC, CW-4 informed the Task Force that
Subject 1 had called CW-4 on 10 May 2007 and inquired about CW-4 contacts with the
Task Force investigators.378
279. The Task Force interviewed all procurement staff members who were involved
with the boat contracts.
280. In her interview with the Task Force on 17 May 2007, Staff Member 14,
MONUC's procurement assistant, stated that she had taken over the procurement
exercises for the boat contracts in early 2004, when Staff Member 2 together with Subject
2 saw "how messy the files were" and asked her to prepare a new procurement exercise
for a long term charter contract.379 Upon review of the old files handled by Subject 3,
Staff Member 14 found that some of the vessels were chartered without proper
contractual agreements. According to Staff Member 14, many pertinent documents were
missing from the files and some of the vessels used by the mission were not under
contract; others had initial contracts but the amendments and final amendments were


375
    Id. (translated from French).
376
    The Task Force note-to-file (4 May 2007).
377
    Id.
378
    The Task Force note-to-file (11 May 2007).
379
    Staff Member 14 interview (17 May 2007).


                                                                                                   PAGE 58


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


missing.380 Staff Member 14 further related that in certain instances, she actually had to
ask the vendors themselves for copies of the contracts that were missing from MONUC's
files.381 Upon further review, Staff Member 14 found that ad hoc purchase orders had
been issued by Subject 3 and Subject 1 in early 2002 for boat charters for twenty days at
rental costs of US$50,000 per boat, which was much higher than the average market price
for comparable boats.382 Staff Member 14 did not know who had negotiated these prices
or why this was the case.383
281. Staff Member 14 stated that Subject 4, upon arrival at the mission, was not yet
fluent in English and used to complain that he signed contracts and documents prepared
by Subject 3 that he should not have signed because they could cause him problems.384
282. Subject 2, in his interview of 15 May 2007, confirmed the information provided
by Staff Member 14.385 He stated that the first portfolio that caught his attention when he
arrived at the mission was a case file named "Annotation for the LCC for the lease of
additional pushers." The case officer responsible for the lease of the boats was Subject 3
who, in the past, had made a number of separate awards although the total amount had
long since passed the threshold of LCC approval and thus needed HCC approval. He
then decided to rotate the case officer and withdrew Subject 3 from the boat contracts
because the review of the files had shown that she had not handled the case properly and
in accordance with the procurement rules and regulations. For example, potential
vendors were selected by word of mouth as some contracts had been awarded in 2001 or
early 2002. No advertisements were announced either in the local newspapers or on the
procurement website and no one knew how the vendors were chosen.386 The selection
process itself was flawed, as the Scope of Work was extremely vague and did not
describe the minimum performance specifications necessary for a proper technical
evaluation. Technical evaluations were not conducted on each boat and each solicitation
was done in a different manner for each of the contract awards.387
283. Staff Member 5, former MONUC procurement officer, further reported an
incident in which he was involved in a procurement exercise for pushers and barges in
2002 or 2003.388 He was able to negotiate the contract price down to US$15,000 per
month from the original US$70,000 from all the vendors including TFCE and had issued
an initial contract for six months.389 Thereafter, Staff Member 5 was sent to Kisangani




380
    Id.
381
    Id.
382
    Id.
383
    Id.
384
    Id.
385
    Subject 2 interview (15 May 2007).
386
    Id.
387
    Id.
388
    Staff Member 5 interview (23 April 2007).
389
    Id.


                                                                                                   PAGE 59


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


for several months. However, when he returned he found that the boat contracts had
gone back up to the original price of US$70,000 per trip on an ad hoc basis.390
284. Subject 3 in her interviews with the Task Force confirmed that she was in charge
of procurement exercises, contract and price negotiations for the boat contracts since she
arrived at the mission in 2001. She further confirmed that Subject 4 was her supervisor,
while Mr. Ghanem was the CPO. When Mr. Martin Buxey arrived as CPO, he assigned
the boat contracts to Ms. Renois.391 Subject 3 stated repeatedly that she had experience
with shipping and logistics from her own private business, a wholesale liquor store, in
Jamaica.392 Subject 3 confirmed that she had been to TFCE's office on two occasions
where she met both with the company's manager "Mr. Costas" and the company's owner
Company Representative 17.
285. The Task Force identified that "Mr. Costas" is Mr. Constantinos Phillis, Director
General of TFCE.
286. In both interviews with the Task Force, Subject 3 denied that she had ever directly
or indirectly received or requested payments or other tangible benefits from TFCE or any
other MONUC vendor.393
287. Subject 4 confirmed that he was one of the procurement officers responsible for
the boat contracts and stated that he first began dealing with the contracts when he was
the Unit Chief of Contracts.394 In both of his interviews, Subject 4 denied having ever
requested or received money or anything of value from TFCE or any other MONUC
vendor.395 He stated that the only person he dealt with was "Mr. Costa," whom he met
only officially in the Procurement Section and never outside the office. Subject 4
claimed not to recall any irregularities in regard to TFCE's contract and stated that they
were like all the other contractors. He added, however, that in hindsight "there were
certain files that he would not have now accepted." Subject 4 did not elaborate upon this
statement in detail.
288. When interviewed by the Task Force on 16 May 2007, Subject 1 stated that he
could not recall anything regarding the boat contracts, as he had only dealt with these
contracts while another staff member was absent. Subject 1 claimed to know the
company name TFCE "only from the file." Subject 1 denied having ever met with
TFCE's representatives outside of the office and also denied ever having requested or
received anything of value from TFCE or any other boat contractor.396




390
    Id.
391
    Subject 3 interview (18 May 2007) (containing her handwritten comments).
392
    Subject 3 interviews (10 and 18 May 2007).
393
    Id.
394
    Subject 4 interview (11 May 2007).
395
    Subject 4 interviews (27 February and 11 May 2007).
396
    Subject 1 interview (16 May 2007).


                                                                                                   PAGE 60


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
   INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
   STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
   ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


   289. Although the Task Force repeatedly requested all procurement files for the charter
   of pushers, barges and fast boats, the documents obtained were incomplete and
   inconsistent.397
   290. Important information such as contract amendments and other relevant documents
   were often missing from the files. Even more disturbing, contract prices often did not
   correspond to the prices presented to the LCC and HCC. The documents obtained thus
   did not allow for a comprehensive analysis of the boat contracts awarded by MONUC
   since the inception of the Mission.
   291. Due to the poor condition of the procurement files obtained, the Task Force was
   unable to reconstruct the chronology of the contracts awarded to TFCE for the time
   period from 2001 to 2003, the period during which Subject 1 and Subject 3 were the
   assigned case officers for the boat contracts.
   292. It is therefore impossible to examine the contract information given by CW-4 and
   to determine the exact contracts or purchase orders for which payments have been
   requested and accepted by Subject 3, Subject 4, and Subject 1. Based upon the
   information received during the investigation, as well as reasonable inferences that are to
   be drawn, the Task Force believes that certain records were intentionally kept in poor
   condition to conceal the illegal activities in which procurement staff members were
   engaged, and further to prevent a thorough analysis of the contracts which would have
   revealed that many of the contracts were overpriced and procurement rules and
   regulations had not been followed.

E. OTHER ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SUBJECT 3 AND SUBJECT 4
   293. On 25 April 2007, Mr. Coggon sent an email to the Task Force reporting
   information on "some specifics or known facts on personnel in MONUC
   Procurement."398 In this email Mr. Coggon stated, inter alia, that Subject 4 and Subject 3
   are known to own two of the river barges on contract to the United Nations for cargo
   operations.399
   294. The Task Force interviewed boat owners, dock workers and staff members about
   these allegations. Where available the Task Force further reviewed ownership
   certificates of the vessels chartered by MONUC.
   295. No indication could be found that Subject 4 either directly or through a third party
   owned one of the boats operated by MONUC.


   397
       The Task Force requested all procurement files for the charter of pushers, barges, and fast boat from the
   beginning of the mission to the current RFP in 2007 during its first mission to MONUC from 20 February
   through 1 March 2007. On 7 May 2007, the Task Force further requested the Procurement Section to
   prepare a comprehensive chronology of the contract awards with supporting documentation. The
   documents provided by the Procurement Section began with the Invitation to Bid for the long-term lease of
   barges and pushers in late 2001.
   398
       Staff Member 5 email to the Task Force (25 April 2007).
   399
       Id.


                                                                                                        PAGE 61


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


296. Although several witnesses unanimously confirmed that it was known that
Subject 3 was the owner of one of the boats chartered from MMF, no documents could be
located to further confirm this information.400
297. Company Representative 5 is the owner of Soci�t� Marquin, a company that
provided charter services for fast boats until 2003, when the company's contract was
cancelled by MONUC. Company Representative 5, in his interview with the Task Force
of 25 June 2007, stated that it was common knowledge throughout Kinshasa that Subject
3 had owned shares in one of the fast boats leased from MMF and that while the lease
amounts for the boat had been paid, the boat never left the port.401 Company
Representative 5 did not provide further details as to the name or type of the vessel.
298. Company Representative 6, boat captain for Soci�t� Marquin, related that he
worked at Kinshasa's ports everyday from 2001 until the company's contract with
MONUC was cancelled in 2003. Company Representative 6 elaborated on the riverine
operations and stated that all pushers and barges chartered by MONUC were escorted by
a smaller fast boat on their trips on the Congo River.402
299. Company Representative 6 related that in 2002 or 2003, Company Representative
4 came to purchase one fast boat at the Nautical Yacht Club in Kinshasa. When he was
asked why he was buying another boat--MMF already had fast boats under contract with
MONUC--Company Representative 4 responded that this time the boat was not for him
but for Subject 3.403 The boat was subsequently chartered by MONUC as escort boat no.
UN09A. Company Representative 6 stated that Subject 3 was not the legal proprietor
and that Company Representative 4 held and operated it on her behalf. Company
Representative 6 himself was not present at the Nautical Yacht Club when the boat was
purchased but said that his staff member was and would be able to confirm the
information.404
300. The Task Force tried to arrange a meeting with the staff member, but was unable
to do so as the staff member was in Brazzaville and did not return to Kinshasa prior to the
departure of the Task Force investigators. In a telephone conversation with the Task
Force on the following day, Company Representative 6 stated that he had spoken to his
staff member and had confirmed the information previously stated, but stated that the
escort boat owned by Subject 3 was boat no. UN10A.405 The Task Force confirmed that
fast boat no. UN10A was owned by MMF.406
301. CW-4 had also informed the Task Force that Subject 3 had owned one of the
speed boats operated by MMF, but was not sure which vessel it had exactly been.407

400
    The Task Force was told that no ownership documents are kept for speed boats in the DRC.
401
    Company Representative 5 interview (13 May 2007).
402
    Company Representative 6 interview (17 May 2007).
403
    Id.
404
    Id.
405
    Id.
406
    Staff Member 14 email to the Task Force (28 June 2007).
407
    CW-4 interview (4 May 2007).


                                                                                                   PAGE 62


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
  INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
  STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
   ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


   CW-4 stated that Subject 3, although not legally the proprietor, would be the factual
   owner of MMF's boat. CW-4 added that Subject 3 was present at the nautical club
   during the purchase of this boat.408
   302. CW-2 also had been informed by the local staff that Subject 3 had owned a boat
   and was a partner in one of the barge companies. CW-2 was not sure as to the exact
   company.409
   303. As discussed above, Company Representative 4 adamantly denied having given
   benefits to any staff member at MONUC.410
   304. Subject 3 in her interview of 18 May 2007 denied having ever directly or
   indirectly owned a boat or having ever received anything of value from MMF.411
   305. The Task Force investigators made inquiries, both at the Nautical Club and the
   Nautical Yacht Club at Kinshasa. However, no one was able to further substantiate the
   information provided to the Task Force.

F. OTHER COMPANIES
   306. The Task Force contacted representatives and employees of Transfluco and
   Domaine de la Palmeraie, two other companies providing boat charter services to
   MONUC.
   307. Although the Task Force repeatedly received information that both companies
   were making payments to MONUC staff members, none of the companies'
   representatives were willing to confirm this information with the investigators.

   1.      Transfluco
   308. According to the information provided to the Task Force purchase orders totaling
   approximately US$2.1 million were issued to Transfluco from July 2002 through
   February 2006.412




   408
       Id.
   409
       CW-2 interview (8 May 2007).
   410
       Company Representative 4 interview (3 May 2007).
   411
       Subject 3 interview (18 May 2007).
   412
       Report on Purchase Orders/Contract for Pushers and Barges with Statistics (15 June 2007).


                                                                                                      PAGE 63


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


 Table F: Transfluco Purchase Orders (1 July 2002 to 28 February 2006)




309. Company Representative 7, President of "Transporteur Fluviaux, F�d�ration du
Congo," a commission representing the interests of Kinshasa's riverine enterprises.413 In
his interview with the Task Force, Company Representative 7 stated that Company
Representative 8, the owner of Transfluco, had confided to him that he had to pay ten
percent of the contract value to MONUC staff members in order to receive payment on
his invoices.414 Company Representative 8however denied ever having paid or having
been requested to pay money to MONUC staff.415
310. In 2002, Subject 3 issued a purchase order for a one time trip for a total price of
US$49,200 to Transfluco, which, according to the information obtained during the
investigation, was above the market price for comparable vessels.416 The purchase order
is shown below:




413
    Company Representative 7 interview (9 May 2007).
414
    Id.
415
    Company Representative 8 interview (13 May 2007).
416
    Purchase order no. 2MON � 200258 (29 June 2002); Staff Member 14 interview (17 May 2007).


                                                                                                   PAGE 64


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




 Figure: Purchase order no. 2MON � 200258 (29 June 2002)


2.         Domaine de la Palmeraie
311. According to the information provided to the Task Force, purchase orders totaling
approximately US$2.6 million were issued to Domaine de la Palmeraie between July
2002 and June 2007.417




417
      Report on Purchase Orders/Contract for Pushers and Barges with Statistics (15 June 2007).


                                                                                                   PAGE 65


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


 Table G: Domaine de la Palmeraie Purchase Orders (1 July 2002 to 30 June 2007)




312. Company Representative 3, former General Director of FEC, in his interview of
11 May 2007, stated that it was known that ten percent of the contract value had to be
paid to MONUC procurement staff in order to be awarded contracts. He added that none
of the companies would ever be willing to admit that in an official investigation.418
However, he suggested meeting with Mr. Albert Buisine, owner of Domaine de la
Palmeraie, stating "he may tell [the investigators] what is happening."419
313. The Task Force was unable to contact Mr. and Mrs. Buisine, owners of Domaine
de la Palermaie as they were out of Kinshasa on a boat trip and were not expected to be
back until sometime in June 2007.
314. Subject 3 and Subject 4 were notified of the Task Force' findings on 20 June
2007. Their written responses of 28 and 29 June 2007, respectively, are attached as
Annexes C and D to this Report.420 In the Task Force's view, the responses do not
compel any change to the proposed findings and conclusions.




418
    Company Representative 3 interview (11 May 2007).
419
    Id.
420
    Subject 4's response, dated 20 June 2007, was provided to the Task Force on 29 June 2007.


                                                                                                   PAGE 66


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
     INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
     STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
     ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________



X.   SUBJECT 5
 A. PROFESSIONAL AND PERSONAL BACKGROUND
     315. Subject 5 was born on 3 January 1949 in Jamaica.421 He is divorced and has "at
     least eight children."422
     316. Subject 5 is a permanent staff member who has worked for the United Nations for
     over thirty years.423 He began working for the United Nations on 5 May 1979, in the
     Security Department of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization ("UNTSO"),
     located in Jerusalem. From that mission, Subject 5 proceeded to work at various other
     United Nations peacekeeping missions throughout the world, including Cyprus, Namibia,
     Cambodia, Syria, Somalia, Rwanda, Liberia and Pakistan. For most of the missions, he
     worked in the Property Control Inventory Unit or the Claims Unit. His first procurement
     assignment was in 1998 when he was reassigned to Pakistan. From there he was
     transferred to Bangui Central Africa and worked in the Claims and Property Survey Unit.
     When Bangui was absorbed into MONUC, he was initially transferred to the procurement
     unit. In April 2000, Subject 5 was transferred to MONUC's Procurement Section.424
     317. He currently works as a procurement assistant in MONUC at a Field Support
     Staff. Subject 5' contract expires on 31 January 2009.425

 B. ALLEGATION
     318. The Task Force began investigating Subject 5 for allegations made in 2005 that he
     and several other procurement staff members were soliciting bribes from vendors in
     return for their assistance with contract awards and invoice payments.426 Although the
     Task Force did not find any evidence that Subject 5 had requested bribes from vendors
     for contracts or invoice payments, the investigation revealed that Subject 5 had requested
     money from a MONUC vendor by the name of UAC.427

 C. INVESTIGATIVE DETAILS: LOAN FROM UAC
     319. When interviewed by the Task Force about the payments made by Subject 1,
     UAC's representatives were asked if they were familiar with any other staff members at
     MONUC's Procurement Section.428



     421
         Subject 5 Personnel Action Notification Administration (11 July 2006).
     422
         Subject 5 interview (10 May 2007).
     423
         Id.
     424
         Id.
     425
         Subject 5 Personnel Action Notification Administration (11 July 2006).
     426
         ID cases nos. 180/05 and 615/05.
     427
         Company Representative 15 and Company Representative 9 interview (8 May 2007).
     428
         Id.


                                                                                                        PAGE 67


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


320. Company Representative 9, a UAC sales manager, stated that Subject 5 would
come to buy music equipment.429 Once Subject 5 had owed UAC US$1,600 for music
equipment he bought and did not pay for more than a year.430
321. On another occasion, Subject 5 had asked if he could borrow US$800 for a
deposit on an apartment because he had to move out of his current apartment and did not
have money for the deposit. Company Representative 9 stated that he had loaned Subject
5 the amount on 9 December 2004. He further confirmed that Subject 5 had paid back
the amount in full.431 Company Representative 9 provided the Task Force with a copy of
the UAC ledger for Subject 5 that purported to show that UAC was paid back US$1,650
that included the US$800 loan for the deposit in July 2006:432




 Figure: UAC Ledger Account (1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006)

322. In his interview with the Task Force on 10 May 2007, Subject 5 first stated that he
never received money from a vendor doing business with MONUC. When presented
with the facts identified by the Task Force, Subject 5 stated, "Now after you refresh my
memory." Subject 5 could recall needing money for the deposit to move into a new
apartment and asked Company Representative 9 from UAC if he would help him out,
which Company Representative 9 did.433
323. Subject 5 further stated that he did not consider it a conflict of interest or a
violation of United Nations regulations and rules since it was a purely private matter
which was not related to any contract award and he did not ask for any favors in return.434

429
    Id.
430
    Id.
431
    Id.
432
    Id.; UAC Ledger Account (1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006) (reflecting payment to "Subject 5").
433
    Subject 5 interview (10 May 2007).
434
    Id.


                                                                                                   PAGE 68


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
      INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
      STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
      ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


      324. According to MONUC procurement records, UAC was issued fourteen purchase
      orders for approximately US$195,000 from June 2001 until December 2006.435 v was
      listed as the buyer on three of these purchase orders for a total of US$36,380.436
      325. The "loan" was given on 9 December 2004--only eight months after the last
      purchase order issued by Subject 5 and approximately two weeks after 26 November
      2004, when purchase order no. 5KIN-200283 was issued to UAC for US$11,000.
      326. Subject 5 was notified of the Task Force's findings on 20 June 2007. Subject 5
      provided his response to the Task Force's adverse finding letter on 3 July 2007. His
      written response was considered, and is attached as Annex E to this Report. After
      consideration of Subject 5' response, the Task Force concludes its findings are warranted.

XI. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
 A.         SUBJECT 1
      1.      Findings
      327. The Task Force finds that MONUC procurement assistant Subject 1 engaged over
      many years in an extensive pattern of bribery and scheme to solicit payments from a
      number of MONUC vendors and companies doing business in Kinshasa, and unlawfully
      and improperly received and accepted sums of money and other tangible benefits from
      numerous vendors doing or seeking to do business with the Organisation in the Congo.
      The solicitation of Subject 1 of payments of sums of money was accompanied by
      promises of favourable treatment on the vendor's behalf in MONUC bidding exercises or
      threats extended by him that the vendor would not achieve the contracts without making
      such payments to him. In this regard, Subject 1's unlawful and corrupt activities
      included:
             (i)    Solicitation of bribery payments from Ekima, a MONUC vendor, in
      exchange for favourable treatment with various cement contracts which Subject 1
      handled on behalf of MONUC procurement;
             (ii)    Efforts to secure painting services for his private apartment and
      swimming pool for him by Ekima, a United Nations vendor participating in a series of
      bidding exercises handled by Subject 1;
             (iii)    Assistance on behalf of the company Soci�t� Matina, and its owner,
      Company Representative 1, a personal friend, in connection with ongoing bidding
      exercises for catering services contracts the company was bidding on with the Mission,
      including assistance in preparing and submitting bidding documents for contracts with
      MONUC, and accepting sums of money from the company;

      435
          UAC purchase orders nos. 1MON 200315;2MON-200329; 3KIN-200031; 3KIN-200192; 3KIN-
      200198; 4KIN-200689; 4KIN-200615; 5KIN-200171; 5KIN-200283; 6KIN-200281; 6KIN-200574; 6KIN-
      200925; 7KIN-200368; 7KIN-200470.
      436
          UAC purchase orders nos. 3KIN-200192; 4KIN-200689; 4KIN-200615.


                                                                                                         PAGE 69


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


       (iv)    Request for payment sometime between in or about October 2004 and July
2005, from AVC Construct, and its owner, Mr. Alain VanCustem, in exchange for
securing the contract for the company for the Rehabilitation of the Bunia runway,
contract no. CON/MON/05/075, worth approximately US$5.5 million;
      (v)    Solicitation and receipt of US$10,000 from TFCE, a MONUC vendor, in
exchange for his assistance in securing contracts on behalf of the company with
MONUC;
        (vi)  Solicitation of a bribery payment, a kickback, and other tangible benefits
from SoTraBen, a United Nations vendor in MONUC, in exchange for assistance in
steering a contract to the company for the Rehabilitation of the Bukavu runway,
CON/MON/05/007, with an approximate value of US$5 million; and
        (vii) The solicitation for, and the acceptance of, sums of money from three
individual vendors doing business with MONUC characterised as "loans," albeit without
interest and any accompanying formal documentation, in excess of US$4,200.
328. The investigations also identified that Subject 1 had commenced these illegal
activities as early as 1986 during his first assignments with the Organisation at UNDOF
and UNAMIR, and continued his illegal and corrupt pursuits uninterrupted and
unimpeded despite complaints to United Nations officials by vendors and their
representatives. The initiation of investigations also did not deter or dissuade his
conduct.
329. The Task Force further finds Subject 1's denials of these circumstances not
credible and his explanations without merit as such denials are belied by overwhelming
evidence to the contrary, including forensic evidence gathered on his computer, Subject
1's inconsistent and false statements, as well as contrary statements provided by a
plethora of witnesses more fully described in the Report. In that regard, the Task Force
finds Subject 1 made misleading and false material statements to the Task Force, namely:
        (i)     When questioned about solicitation of bribes of Ekima, Subject 1 initially
stated that he never dealt with Company Representative 10, the owner of Ekima, and then
later conceded that such interaction was a possibility. Records reflect, however, that
Subject 1 was unequivocally the case officer on three separate Ekima contracts and
clearly solicited bribes from the company as confirmed by company officials. Such
statements by company officials are corroborated by other evidence, and other similar
episodes reported by other vendors, and the fact that such statements are inherently
credible as there is no identified motive for such officials to offer false statements about
such incidents. To the contrary, Subject 1's false exculpatory statements are
uncorroborated, lack any support, and are contradicted by a host of witnesses. Subject
1's false statements were made against the backdrop of a series of inconsistent and other
false statements.
     (ii)  Subject 1's adamant denials that he received anything of value from
Company Representative 10 are unpersuasive. This statement is contradicted by the




                                                                                                   PAGE 70


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


evidence that Company Representative 10 painted Subject 1's residence and swimming
pool--facts which Subject 1 later conceded.
       (iii) Subject 1's falsely denied offering and providing any assistance to
Company Representative 1 in connection with MONUC's catering contracts. Subject 1's
statement is directly contradicted through forensic retrieval of Company Representative
1's company's technical proposal which was created on Subject 1's computer.
        (iv)   Subject 1's falsely asserted that Company Representative 12 of AVC
Construct had not been to his house to discuss payment of sums of money to secure the
contract for the rehabilitation of the Bukava runway project. Subject 1's statement is
contradicted by Company Representative 12, who provided a detailed description of the
event, and an accurate description of Subject 1's home and family. Subject 1 later
conceded to the meeting when confronted with conflicting information by Task Force
investigators.
        (v)      Subject 1 falsely denied payments of any sums of money to United
Nations vendors. Subject 1's claim is flatly contradicted by electronic evidence gathered
from Subject 1's computer which reflects that payments were made to two United
Nations vendors, UAC and Panache. After presented with such evidence, Subject 1
described the payments as repayments for "loans" extended by these two companies. The
Task Force does not find these representations credible either, in light of the
circumstances more clearly set forth herein and the fact that the payments were without
interest and without any supporting documentation, and were purportedly made two years
after the event.
        (vi)    As a result of the foregoing, the Task Force finds that Subject 1 made
knowingly false, misleading and inaccurate material statements to Task Force
investigators as reflected above.
330. As a result of Subject 1's scheme to solicit bribes and kickbacks from United
Nations vendors in exchange for favourable treatment and other efforts on behalf of such
companies and their officials, Subject 1 severely corrupted the procurement exercises in
connection with the award of these contracts, completely undermined the integrity of the
bidding exercises, and contributed substantially to the poor reputation of the mission's
procurement service and the damage to the Organisation's reputation as a whole in the
Mission. As a result of Subject 1's acts, as well as the acts of the other procurement
officials described herein, it is evident that goods and services were, and continue to be,
routinely procured for the Organisation without the use of a fair, transparent, objective,
and truly competitive process, and through bribery, kickbacks, corrupt and illegal acts.
Subject 1's acts over the course of at least the past twenty years have perpetuated the
stark and clear reality that vendors are required to pay sums of money to United Nations
officials to secure contracts with the Organisation in this Mission.
331. Based upon these findings, it is evident that Subject 1's illegal conduct also
resulted in substantial financial losses to the Organisation, as the costs of bribes granted
are generally not borne by the company making the payments but are included in the
contract prices offered to and paid by the Organisation. From 2006 to 2007 alone,


                                                                                                   PAGE 71


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


purchase orders totaling more than US$6.2 million have been issued by Subject 1.
Although the Task Force is unable to quantify the full extent of the loss caused to the
Organisation by Subject 1's illegal activities, it can be conservatively estimated to be in
the hundreds of thousands of United States dollars.

2.      Conclusion
332. The Task Force concludes that Subject 1 knowingly and purposefully violated the
following provisions of the Staff Regulations:
      (i)     Regulation 1.2(b), by failing to uphold the highest standards of efficiency,
competence, and integrity;
       (ii)   Regulation 1.2(e), by not regulating his conduct with the interests of the
Organisation only in view;
       (iii) Regulation 1.2(f), by engaging in inappropriate activities with a United
Nations vendor, which adversely reflected on the integrity, independence, and
impartiality that are required by his status as a procurement official with the United
Nations;
        (iv)    Regulation 1.2(g), by using the office or his knowledge gained from his
official functions for private financial gain;
        (v)    Regulation 1.2(i), by communicating to vendors doing or seeking to do
business with the Organisation information known to him by reason of his official
position as procurement assistant; and
       (vi)    Regulation 1.2(l), by accepting favours and gifts (including sums of
money characterised as interest free "loans" from vendors doing business with the
Organisation).
333. Subject 1 purposefully and knowingly breached the general principles set down in
Regulation 5.12 of the Financial Rules and Regulations of the United Nations, which
provides that the procurement process shall be carried out with fairness, integrity,
transparency, and effective competition in order to best serve the financial interests of the
Organisation.
334. In addition, Subject 1 purposefully and knowingly violated the following sections
of the United Nations Procurement Manual:
       (i)     Section 4.1.5(4)(a), which provides that United Nations staff shall not
allow any vendors access to information on a particular acquisition before such
information is available to the business community at large;
        (ii)   Section 4.2(1), which states that a procurement officer in an official
procurement capacity should not be placed in a position where their actions may
constitute or could be reasonably perceived as reflecting favourable treatment to an
individual or entity by accepting offers or gifts and hospitality or other similar
considerations; and



                                                                                                   PAGE 72


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
   INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
   STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
   ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


           (iii) Section 4.2(2), which stipulates that it is inconsistent for a procurement
   officer to accept any gift from any outside source regardless of the value and regardless
   of whether the outside source is or is not soliciting business with the United Nations. All
   staff members involved in procurement shall decline offers of gifts.
   335. Subject 1 knowingly and purposefully engaged in the corrupt activities described
   above by soliciting and accepting payments and other tangible benefits from vendors
   doing or seeking to do business with the Organisation in return for being improperly
   influenced in the performance of his duty as a procurement official.
   336. Further, the aforementioned acts, namely the solicitation of bribes and kickbacks,
   the receipt of sums of money in exchange for favourable treatment in official bidding
   exercises, are clearly criminal acts and can be prosecuted in a court of law. In that
   regard, Subject 1 has committed criminal acts of bribery, conspiracy, and solicitation and
   acceptance of unlawful gratuity.

B. SUBJECT 2
   1.      Findings
   337. The Task Force finds that MONUC procurement officer Subject 2 engaged in
   corrupt and unlawful activity in connection with his role as United Nations procurement
   official in MONUC, in that he solicited, received and accepted sums of money in 2005
   from Maison Mukoie Fils, a vendor doing business with the Organisation. Although
   Subject 2 characterised the receipt of the sum of money as a "loan," he conceded that he
   received the money to purchase a car that he could not otherwise afford to buy with
   available funds. Company officials confirmed the payment to Subject 2. Even if the
   money was subsequently paid back to Company Representative 4, Subject 2 received a
   clear and tangible benefit since the payments were made without interest and repayment
   terms. Even Subject 2 himself admitted that he would have been charged a ten percent
   commission if he sought to secure a loan from the local Congolese bank. Such conduct,
   even accepting Subject 2's ultimate explanation, contravenes the Organisation's
   procurement and financial rules governing conduct with vendors.
   338. The Task Force further finds that Subject 2 made false statements to the Task
   Force about the circumstances of his interaction with Maison Mukoie Fils and the receipt
   and repayment of the money, falsely asserting that he had not received anything of value
   from a vendor greater than US$20. This statement was materially false in that the
   evidence, including Subject 2's own statements, as well as electronic evidence retrieved
   from Subject 2's computer, reveals clear evidence that Subject 2 made a US$7,000
   payment to MMF. After presented with such evidence, Subject 2 conceded that he had
   received US$7,000 from the company in August 2005. Subject 2 acknowledged that the
   principal of the company, Company Representative 4, left an envelope of cash for him at
   the Procurement Section's offices, and ultimately asserted that the electronic record
   retrieved by the Task Force reflected his repayment to company officials for what he
   described was a "loan" to purchase a car.


                                                                                                      PAGE 73


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


339. Based upon the evidence gathered during the investigation, the Task Force further
finds that Subject 2 may well have requested and received other payments and tangible
benefits in return for his improper assistance to Maison Mukoie Fils in obtaining and
maintaining contracts with the Organisation. The investigation is continuing as to these
matters.
340. As a result, Subject 2's corrupt actions, which have increased gravity as he served
in a supervisory capacity within the Procurement Section, contributed to the decay and
compromise of the integrity of the procurement process in procurement exercises in
MONUC, and in particular, the bidding exercises in which Maison Mukoie Fils was
involved.

2.      Conclusion
341. The Task Force concludes that Subject 2 knowingly and purposefully violated the
following provisions of the Staff Regulations:
      (i)     Regulation 1.2(b), by failing to uphold the highest standards of efficiency,
competence, and integrity;
       (ii)   Regulation 1.2(e), by not regulating his conduct with the interests of the
Organisation only in view;
       (iii) Regulation 1.2(f), by engaging in inappropriate activities with a United
Nations vendor, which adversely reflected on the integrity, independence, and
impartiality that are required by his status as a procurement official with the United
Nations;
        (iv)    Regulation 1.2(g), by using the office or his knowledge gained from his
official functions for private financial gain; and
       (v)     Regulation 1.2(l), by accepting favours and gifts (including sums of
money characterised as interest free "loans" from vendors doing business with the
Organisation).
342. Subject 2 purposefully and knowingly breached the general principles set down in
Regulation 5.12 of the Financial Rules and Regulations of the United Nations, which
provides that the procurement process shall be carried out with fairness, integrity,
transparency, and effective competition in order to best serve the financial interests of the
Organisation.
343. In addition, Subject 2 purposefully and knowingly violated the following sections
of the United Nations Procurement Manual:
        (i)    Section 4.2(1), which provides that a procurement officer in an official
procurement capacity should not be placed in a position where their actions may
constitute or could be reasonably perceived as reflecting favourable treatment to an
individual or entity by accepting offers or gifts and hospitality or other similar
considerations; and



                                                                                                   PAGE 74


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
   INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
   STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
   ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


           (ii)   Section 4.2(2), which provides that it is inconsistent that a procurement
   officer accepts any gift from any outside source regardless of the value and regardless of
   whether the outside source is or is not soliciting business with the United Nations. All
   staff members involved in procurement shall decline offers of gifts.
   344. The Task Force further finds that, as a result of the foregoing, Subject 2 engaged
   in corrupt and illegal acts.

C. SUBJECT 3 AND SUBJECT 4
   1.      Findings
   345. The Task Force finds that, based upon the information received during the
   investigation, as well as reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, MONUC
   procurement assistant Subject 3 solicited, received, and accepted sums of money from
   Transport Fluvial et Commerce, a vendor doing business with the Organisation, in
   exchange for providing improper and unlawful assistance in contract selection exercises
   involving this company in the Mission on several occasions between 2001 and 2003.
   346. The Task Force finds that, based upon the information received during the
   investigation, as well as reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, MONUC
   procurement assistant Subject 4 solicited, received, and accepted sums of money from
   TFCE, a vendor doing business with the Organisation, in exchange for providing
   improper and unlawful assistance in contract selection exercises involving this company
   in the Mission on several occasions between 2001 and 2003.
   347. Although both individuals emphatically denied the allegations, the Task Force
   credits the information provided by CW-4 in connection with this matter. The Task
   Force finds this witness truthful, without any inherent bias or motive to provide false
   information. The Task Force further finds that CW-4's statements are corroborated by
   the surrounding circumstances, including the fact that the information inculpates this
   witness and is consistent with the well-known environment in MONUC, in which it is a
   condition to do business with the Organisation to pay sums of money. CW-4's
   statements are further corroborated by the information provided by other witnesses,
   including four witnesses stating that Subject 3 received a personal benefit from another
   vendor in the form of a boat.
   348. As a result of Subject 3 and Subject 4's involvement, the procurement exercises
   with TFCE were severely tainted by fraud and corruption.
   349. As described above, it is evident that Subject 3 and Subject 4's involvement in
   this criminal scheme also resulted in substantial financial losses to the Organisation.
   Contracts and purchase orders totaling approximately US$2.4 million were issued by
   Subject 3 to TFCE under the supervision of Subject 4. Although the Task Force is not
   able to determine the total extent of the damage and loss caused by their illegal activities,
   it is clear that the amounts of US$40,000 and US$7,500 received by Subject 3 and




                                                                                                      PAGE 75


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Subject 4, respectively, constitute the minimum amount of loss caused to the
Organisation.

2.      Conclusion
350. The Task Force concludes that Subject 3 and Subject 4 knowingly and
purposefully violated the following provisions of the Staff Regulations:
      (i)     Regulation 1.2(b), by failing to uphold the highest standards of efficiency,
competence, and integrity;
       (ii)   Regulation 1.2(e), by not regulating his conduct with the interests of the
Organisation only in view;
       (iii) Regulation 1.2(f), by engaging in inappropriate activities with a United
Nations vendor, which adversely reflected on the integrity, independence, and
impartiality that are required by his status as a procurement official with the United
Nations;
        (iv)    Regulation 1.2(g), by using the office or his knowledge gained from his
official functions for private financial gain; and
       (v)     Regulation 1.2(l), by accepting favours and gifts (including sums of
money characterised as interest free "loans" from vendors doing business with the
Organisation).
351. Subject 3 and Subject 4 purposefully and knowingly breached the general
principles set down in Regulation 5.12 of the Financial Rules and Regulations of the
United Nations, which provides that the procurement process shall be carried out with
fairness, integrity, transparency, and effective competition in order to best serve the
financial interests of the Organisation.
352. In addition, Subject 3 and Subject 4 purposefully and knowingly violated the
following sections of the United Nations Procurement Manual:
        (i)    Section 4.2(1), which provides that a procurement officer in an official
procurement capacity should not be placed in a position where their actions may
constitute or could be reasonably perceived as reflecting favourable treatment to an
individual or entity by accepting offers or gifts and hospitality or other similar
considerations; and
        (ii)   Section 4.2(2), which provides that it is inconsistent that a procurement
officer accepts any gift from any outside source regardless of the value and regardless of
whether the outside source is or is not soliciting business with the United Nations. All
staff members involved in procurement shall decline offers of gifts.
353. Further, Subject 3 and Subject 4 committed criminal acts in that they each
knowingly and purposefully engaged in the corrupt activities described above by
soliciting and accepting payments from a vendor doing and seeking to do business with
the Organisation in return for being improperly influenced in the performance of their



                                                                                                   PAGE 76


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
   INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
   STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
   ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


   duty as procurement officials with the United Nations. Such activity constitutes criminal
   acts of bribery, conspiracy, and unlawful gratuity.

D. SUBJECT 5
   1.      Findings
   354. The Task Force finds that MONUC procurement assistant Subject 5 accepted
   sums of money from UAC Sprl., a vendor doing business and seeking to do business with
   MONUC, and thereby engaged in corrupt, improper, and unlawful acts. Such conduct
   also runs afoul of numerous rules and regulations of the Organisation which govern
   conduct between procurement staff and vendors and prohibit the exchange, receipt, or
   transfer of things of value, gifts, and sums of money to and from staff and vendors.

   2.      Conclusion
   355. The Task Force concludes that Subject 5 thereby knowingly and purposefully
   violated the following provisions of the Staff Regulations:
         (i)     Regulation 1.2(b), by failing to uphold the highest standards of efficiency,
   competence, and integrity;
          (ii)   Regulation 1.2(e), by not regulating his conduct with the interests of the
   Organisation only in view;
          (iii) Regulation 1.2(f), by engaging in inappropriate activities with a United
   Nations vendor, which adversely reflected on the integrity, independence, and
   impartiality that are required by his status as a procurement official with the United
   Nations; and
          (iv)    Regulation 1.2(l), by accepting favours and gifts (including sums of
   money characterised as interest free "loans" from vendors doing business with the
   Organisation).
   356. Subject 5 further purposefully and knowingly breached the general principles set
   down in Regulation 5.12 of the Financial Rules and Regulations of the United Nations,
   which provides that the procurement process shall be carried out with fairness, integrity,
   transparency, and effective competition in order to best serve the financial interests of the
   Organisation.
   357. In addition, Subject 5 purposefully and knowingly violated the following sections
   of the United Nations Procurement Manual:
           (i)    Section 4.2(1), which states that a procurement officer in an official
   procurement capacity should not be placed in a position where their actions may
   constitute or could be reasonably perceived as reflecting favourable treatment to an
   individual or entity by accepting offers or gifts and hospitality or other similar
   considerations; and



                                                                                                      PAGE 77


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
    INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
    STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


            (ii)   Section 4.2(2), which provides that it is inconsistent that a procurement
    officer accepts any gift from any outside source regardless of the value and regardless of
    whether the outside source is or is not soliciting business with the United Nations.
    358. As a result, the integrity of the procurement process in bidding exercises with
    UAC Sprl. was severely compromised.

 E. MONUC PROCUREMENT
    359. The Task Force finds that corruption has existed in procurement in the Mission
    for a number of years, and continues to pervade the procurement processes and culture in
    MONUC. The payment of sums of money, typically a fixed percentage (which varied) of
    the gross contract amount, is required to be paid to staff in the Procurement Section to
    secure a contract with the Organisation. This fact is well known throughout the business
    community in Kinshasa and by the vendors that do, and seek to do, business with the
    Organisation. Despite repeated complaints and referrals by vendors, staff, and others to
    MONUC officials, the conduct continues uninterrupted in an open and obvious manner.
    Mission officials have been derelict in their responsibility to address this problem that
    plagues the Mission and severely undermines the reputation of the Organisation and the
    integrity of all procurement processes.
    360. The Task Force further finds that the record and file keeping in procurement is at
    best dismal, and at worst, infused by an intentional effort to destroy and conceal from
    investigators significant documents. The Task Force finds that MONUC's Procurement
    Section lacks an organised and efficient filing system, and maintains merely an ad hoc
    gathering of miscellaneous papers that are often missing critical documents. In a number
    of procurement exercises, Task Force investigators were unable to locate and find the
    contracts themselves, the submissions of the vendors, and the evaluations of bids.
    361. The Task Force's investigation of the procurement activities in MONUC is
    ongoing and the Task Force will issue a subsequent report addressing additional matters
    under investigation.
    362. The Task Force has not yet fully completed its investigation into all matters
    pertaining to Subject 2, Subject 3, and Subject 4. Thus, this Report should be considered
    interim as to these staff members.

XII. RECOMMENDATIONS
 A. RECOMMENDATION PTF-R011/07/1
    363. The Task Force recommends that appropriate action be immediately taken against
    Subject 1, Subject 3, Subject 5, Subject 4, and Subject 2 for the violations identified
    herein, and that any authority these staff members may exercise over procurement be
    immediately removed and divested from them.




                                                                                                       PAGE 78


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
   INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
   STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
   ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


   364. The Task Force further recommends that these staff members, Subject 1, Subject
   2, Subject 3, Subject 5, and Subject 4 be immediately removed from the Mission and
   placed on administrative suspension.

B. RECOMMENDATION PTF-R011/07/2
   365. Due to the widespread and inherent corruption in procurement, which permeates
   all business in the Mission, the Task Force recommends that significant overhaul of
   procurement be undertaken immediately, or that procurement authority be completely
   removed, and that the Mission be divested of responsibility for this function. The Task
   Force recommends that, at least in the short term, procurement authority for the Mission
   be transferred in full to the United Nations Headquarters and the Department of
   Management, or outsourced to a competent and integrous third party.
   366. The Task Force recommends that all procurement staff undergo anti-corruption
   and ethics training, and that a competent and ethical official be appointed to manage
   procurement in the mission.

C. RECOMMENDATION PTF-R011/07/3
   367. The Task Force recommends that Subject 1, Subject 3, Subject 5, Subject 4, and
   Subject 2 be required to disclose all personal financial information to the Task Force, and
   respond to all requests for documents and information by Task Force investigators,
   consistent with Staff Rule 1.2(r) in order to clearly establish the extent of the fraud and
   corruption. These staff members should be required to produce all bank records, records
   of assets, transfers, bank and financial accounts, and receipts of funds and tangible goods
   in any form and to any degree from at least 2000 to present.

D. RECOMMENDATION PTF-R011/07/4
   368. The Task Force recommends that the Organisation, as a victim of crime, refer the
   matter to the appropriate authorities, including prosecutorial authorities in the Democratic
   Republic of Congo, for any and all action such authorities deem appropriate.

E. RECOMMENDATION PTF-R011/07/5
   369. The Task Force recommends that Subject 1, Subject 3, Subject 5, Subject 4, and
   Subject 2 be held financially liable to the United Nations for any and all financial loss
   suffered by the Organisation as a result of the violations of its regulations and rules,
   pursuant to Staff Rule 112.3.

F. RECOMMENDATION PTF-R011/07/6
   370. The Task Force recommends that the Organisation make efforts through all
   available means to seek restitution from these staff members in courts in the Democratic
   Republic of Congo and other relevant jurisdictions, through the civil or criminal law
   process.


                                                                                                      PAGE 79


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
     INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
     STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
     ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________


     371. The Task Force further recommends that appropriate legal action be taken by the
     Organisation with regard to tangible and intangible assets of Subject 1, which were
     acquired using the proceeds of his illegal activities.

G. RECOMMENDATION PTF-R011/07/7
     372. The Task Force recommends that a full and detailed examination of all
     procurement exercises not only handled by, but also undertaken with participation of,
     these staff members be conducted in order to determine the total extent of the loss caused
     to the Organisation through the inflated contract prices, overpayments and other related
     irregularities and corrupt acts.

H. RECOMMENDATION PTF-R011/07/8
     373. The Task Force recommends that the ongoing procurement exercise for the
     provision of catering services be cancelled and that a new bidding exercise be instituted.

I.   RECOMMENDATION PTF-R011/07/9
     374. The Task Force recommends that the current provider of catering services for
     MONUC, Soci�t� Matina Sprl., and any other company directly or indirectly related to
     Company Representative 1 be excluded from this procurement exercise and permanently
     removed from the United Nations vendor roster.

J. RECOMMENDATION PTF-R011/07/10
     375. The Task Force recommends that the following vendors be permanently removed
     from the United Nations vendor roster: Maison Mukoie Fils ("MMF"), Soci�t� Matina
     Sprl ("Matina"), and Soci�t� de Transport de Bens Sprl. ("SoTranBen"), as well as the
     principals of these companies.

K. RECOMMENDATION PTF-R011/07/11
     376. The Task Force recommends that no action be taken at this time against Ekima or
     TFCE as these entities are cooperating with the Task Force and their removal would
     severely and irreparably harm ongoing investigations carried out by the Task Force. The
     Task Force recommends that any action contemplated against these vendors be
     considered after the completion of the Task Force's investigations. At such time, the
     Task Force will recommend that the Organisation and the Vendor Review Committee
     take into consideration the cooperation these entities have provided to the Task Force.




                                                                                                        PAGE 80


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




ANNEX A: SUBJECT 1 LETTER TO THE TASK FORCE
(28 JUNE 2007)




                                                                                                   PAGE 81


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




                                                                                                   PAGE 82


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




                                                                                                   PAGE 83


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________



ANNEX B: SUBJECT 2 LETTER TO THE TASK FORCE
(28 JUNE 2007)




                                                                                                   PAGE 84


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




                                                                                                   PAGE 85


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




                                                                                                   PAGE 86


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




                                                                                                   PAGE 87


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________



ANNEX C: SUBJECT 2 LETTER TO THE TASK FORCE
(28 JUNE 2007)




                                                                                                   PAGE 88


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




                                                                                                   PAGE 89


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




                                                                                                   PAGE 90


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




                                                                                                   PAGE 91


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________



ANNEX D: SUBJECT 4 LETTER TO THE TASK FORCE
(29 JUNE 2007)




                                                                                                   PAGE 92


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




                                                                                                   PAGE 93


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




                                                                                                   PAGE 94


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________



ANNEX E: SUBJECT 5 LETTER TO THE TASK FORCE
(3 JULY 2007)




                                                                                                   PAGE 95


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIOS PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE
INTERIM REPORT ON MONUC PROCUREMENT
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




                                                                                                   PAGE 96


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Personal tools