Tackling Fraud and Corruption Risks in the Slovak Republic

Description

This report outlines a strategy for managing fraud and corruption risks related to the European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds in the Slovak Republic. It suggests targeted and tailored actions for the authorities responsible for these funds, building on their existing fraud and corruption risk management practices. The strategy and key actions draw from the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity, as well as European Commission guidance and international standards of inter alia the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Foreword Acknowledgements Abbreviations and acronyms Executive summary Enhancing risk assessments Adopting a systematic approach to fraud and corruption risk management 1 European Structural and Investment Funds in the Slovak Republic: An overview of the fraud and corruption risks The ESI Funds project cycle and past challenges in the Slovak Republic Fraud and corruption risks and schemes The OECD partnership with the Central Co-ordination Body and the government of the Slovak Republic Note 2 Enhancing fraud and corruption risk assessments in European Structural and Investment Funds in the Slovak Republic Introduction Priority 1 – Identify relevant risks by sharpening the focus on fraud and corruption Issue analysis Key action: Review and update risk assessment procedures to ensure greater clarity for identifying fraud and corruption risks across the ESI Funds project cycle Priority 2 – Improve the precision and consistency of risk analysis and scoring Issue analysis Key action: Clarify and improve the criteria for scoring fraud and corruption risks Priority 3 – Enhance the analysis of control activities when conducting risk assessments Issue analysis Key action: Ensure control activities are appropriate, sufficient and proportional for mitigating identified risks Priority 4 – Make better use of national and external databases and data analytics to assess risks Issue analysis Key Action: Develop a plan for more effective use of data on irregularities and public procurement Key Action: Conduct periodic statistical analysis of irregularities, fraud cases and audit findings to help determine higher-risk areas in different sectors across the whole system Priority 5 – Improve use of the Arachne risk scoring tool to refine risk assessments Issue analysis Key Action: Further define objectives and expand the use of Arachne for assessing risks within MAs, with practical guidance from the CCB Systemic analysis Data-driven administrative verifications Data-driven on-the-spot (OTS) checks Notes 3 Adopting a systematic approach to managing fraud and corruption risks in European Structural and Investment Funds in the Slovak Republic Introduction Priority 1 – Develop explicit anti-fraud policies and foster a positive risk culture Issue analysis Key action: Have managing authorities develop and approve a tailored anti-fraud policy and disseminate it widely Priority 2 – Establish a formal mechanism for co-ordination among authorities Issue analysis Key Action: Create a task force in the AFCOS network to enable knowledge sharing and exchange of good practices between managing authorities and key stakeholders Priority 3 – Increase the capacity to manage fraud and corruption risks with improved training Issue analysis Key action: Develop formalised, regular, and ongoing training programmes on fraud risk management and assessments for personnel in managing authorities Priority 4 – Improve feedback loops with law enforcement authorities to enhance risk assessments Issue analysis Key Action: Organise information-sharing forums between authorities responsible for managing ESI Funds and key national authorities, including law enforcement authorities and the Anti-Monopoly Office Priority 5 – Monitor and evaluate fraud risk management activities and controls Issue analysis Key action: Develop monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, such as scorecards, that capture a wide range of risk management components and activities Key action: Establish measurement criteria to track the performance of fraud risk management activities Annex A. A comprehensive fraud risk management scorecard for managing authorities Annex B. The chronology of proposed actions for the Government of the Slovak Republic References Further reading