Case Summaries

An OAI investigation established that an individual consultant obtained undue payment from the Executing Agency (EA) of an ADB-administered project in Tonga by submitting fraudulent travel reimbursement claims. Specifically, the consultant: (i) falsely claimed travel reimbursements by submitting falsified invoices; and (ii) misrepresented that he had incurred travel expenses to inspect project sites as the PMU Manager. As a result of this fraudulent claim, the EA had falsely reimbursed the consultant for expenses that were not incurred under the project.

ADB’s Integrity Enforcement Committee (IEC) concurred with OAI’s findings of fraud and determined that the consultant be debarred for a minimum period of five years and imposed with the additional remedial action of restitution. The IEC considered the harm caused to the project and adverse reputational impact on ADB’s interests as aggravating factors warranting longer debarment period.

The consultant may seek reinstatement after serving a minimum debarment period of five years and after the consultant demonstrates compliance with specific conditions. While debarred, the consultant and his related entities are ineligible to participate in any ADB-related activities.

An OAI investigation established that an individual consultant obtained undue payment from the Executing Agency (EA) of an ADB-administered project in Tonga by submitting fraudulent travel reimbursement claims. Specifically, the consultant: (i) falsely claimed travel reimbursements by submitting falsified invoices; and (ii) misrepresented that he had incurred travel expenses to inspect project sites as the PMU Manager. As a result of this fraudulent claim, the EA had falsely reimbursed the consultant for expenses that were not incurred under the project.

ADB’s Integrity Enforcement Committee (IEC) concurred with OAI’s findings of fraud and determined that the consultant be debarred for a minimum period of five years and imposed with the additional remedial action of restitution. The IEC considered the harm caused to the project and adverse reputational impact on ADB’s interests as aggravating factors warranting longer debarment period.

The consultant may seek reinstatement after serving a minimum debarment period of five years and after the consultant demonstrates compliance with specific conditions. While debarred, the consultant and his related entities are ineligible to participate in any ADB-related activities.

An OAI investigation found that M/S Don Enterprise ("DE"), and its proprietor, Mr. Md. Harun Ur Rashid ("Mr. Rashid") participated in the procurement of 26 ADB-financed contracts while debarred and misrepresented their eligibility to participate in ADB-related activities in seven of these bids. OAI further established that nine of these contracts were awarded to DE and its joint venture partners. Mr. Rashid cooperated in the investigation and accepted OAI’s findings.

On 29 July 2025, DE and Mr. Rashid agreed to a 10-year extension of their debarment. They are eligible to apply for reinstatement upon the lapse of the said period, provided they comply with the reinstatement conditions.

An OAI investigation found that M/S Don Enterprise ("DE"), and its proprietor, Mr. Md. Harun Ur Rashid ("Mr. Rashid") participated in the procurement of 26 ADB-financed contracts while debarred and misrepresented their eligibility to participate in ADB-related activities in seven of these bids. OAI further established that nine of these contracts were awarded to DE and its joint venture partners. Mr. Rashid cooperated in the investigation and accepted OAI’s findings.

On 29 July 2025, DE and Mr. Rashid agreed to a 10-year extension of their debarment. They are eligible to apply for reinstatement upon the lapse of the said period, provided they comply with the reinstatement conditions.

An OAI investigation established that a firm and its owner engaged in fraudulent practices by submitting falsified audited financial statements and misrepresenting the company’s financial position in bids for four ADB-financed contracts. Following the investigation, on 17 July 2025, ADB’s Integrity Enforcement Committee (IEC) imposed a five-year debarment on the firm, its owner, and their affiliates from participating in ADB-related activities. In determining the minimum debarment period, the IEC took into account the following circumstances surrounding the integrity violation: (i) the harm caused to the integrity of the procurement process resulting from the falsification of documents to meet bid requirements, and (ii) the sophistication of the integrity violation, as demonstrated by the high degree of planning and repetitive behavior across multiple bids.

As part of the imposed conditions by the IEC, the firm is required to adopt and implement integrity policies to ensure ethical conduct and compliance with applicable legal and regulatory standards. In addition, the firm must engage an independent expert approved by OAI to verify its compliance with these conditions.

An OAI investigation established that a firm and its owner engaged in fraudulent practices by submitting falsified audited financial statements and misrepresenting the company’s financial position in bids for four ADB-financed contracts. Following the investigation, on 17 July 2025, ADB’s Integrity Enforcement Committee (IEC) imposed a five-year debarment on the firm, its owner, and their affiliates from participating in ADB-related activities. In determining the minimum debarment period, the IEC took into account the following circumstances surrounding the integrity violation: (i) the harm caused to the integrity of the procurement process resulting from the falsification of documents to meet bid requirements, and (ii) the sophistication of the integrity violation, as demonstrated by the high degree of planning and repetitive behavior across multiple bids.

As part of the imposed conditions by the IEC, the firm is required to adopt and implement integrity policies to ensure ethical conduct and compliance with applicable legal and regulatory standards. In addition, the firm must engage an independent expert approved by OAI to verify its compliance with these conditions.

An OAI investigation established that a firm, through the actions of its bid representative, was awarded an ADB-financed contract in PRC by misrepresenting its qualifications. Specifically, the firm: (i) falsely claimed similar contract experience by submitting fabricated work experience credentials; and (ii) failed to disclose 10 pending litigations and six ongoing contracts, thereby misleading the Executing Agency and ADB that it met the bid qualification requirements. OAI further found that, during the post-qualification process and post-award clarification process, the firm attempted to conceal these misrepresentations by submitting falsified letters of acceptance and completion certificates. In determining the proposed five-year debarment with conditional reinstatement, OAI considered the level of concealment and harm caused to ADB's interests as aggravating factors.

The firm and its bid representative accepted OAI's findings of fraudulent practices and the proposed five-year debarment. They may seek reinstatement after serving a minimum debarment period of five years, provided they meet specific conditions, including enhancing their bid proposal procedures and implementing integrity related policies and practices. While debarred, the firm, the bid representative, and their related entities are ineligible to participate in any ADB-related activities.

An OAI investigation established that a firm, through the actions of its bid representative, was awarded an ADB-financed contract in PRC by misrepresenting its qualifications. Specifically, the firm: (i) falsely claimed similar contract experience by submitting fabricated work experience credentials; and (ii) failed to disclose 10 pending litigations and six ongoing contracts, thereby misleading the Executing Agency and ADB that it met the bid qualification requirements. OAI further found that, during the post-qualification process and post-award clarification process, the firm attempted to conceal these misrepresentations by submitting falsified letters of acceptance and completion certificates. In determining the proposed five-year debarment with conditional reinstatement, OAI considered the level of concealment and harm caused to ADB's interests as aggravating factors.

The firm and its bid representative accepted OAI's findings of fraudulent practices and the proposed five-year debarment. They may seek reinstatement after serving a minimum debarment period of five years, provided they meet specific conditions, including enhancing their bid proposal procedures and implementing integrity related policies and practices. While debarred, the firm, the bid representative, and their related entities are ineligible to participate in any ADB-related activities.

OAI’s investigation established that three firms and their respective directors engaged in fraudulent practices by misrepresenting that they have no conflict of interest in multiple bids for contracts under an ADB project, notwithstanding their close familial relationship with the designated project manager for the project.

The ADB’s Integrity Enforcement Committee ("IEC") concurred with OAI’s findings of fraud and debarred the firms and their directors for 4-5 years for engaging in fraudulent practices.

OAI’s investigation established that three firms and their respective directors engaged in fraudulent practices by misrepresenting that they have no conflict of interest in multiple bids for contracts under an ADB project, notwithstanding their close familial relationship with the designated project manager for the project.

The ADB’s Integrity Enforcement Committee ("IEC") concurred with OAI’s findings of fraud and debarred the firms and their directors for 4-5 years for engaging in fraudulent practices.