Payment in full

The whistleblower has also alleged that BuildWell was paid in full by the RA despite the quantity and quality defects.

The following paragraphs summarise the evidence that the investigator should examine to ascertain whether this allegation is justified.

If the investigation into the quantity and quality issue has found sufficient evidence that BuildWell did not provide the correct contractual quantity and/or quality, then it is reasonable to investigate why BuildWell was paid in full by the RA’s personnel.

Identify who on behalf of the RA was responsible for approving payment to BuildWell.  Assume for the purposes of this case study that it was the RA’s Finance Director.

Interview the Finance Director as to:

• what steps s/he was meant to take to verify that a payment was due before approving payment
• what steps s/he actually took to verify that full payment was due to BuildWell: (e.g. checking payment application documents and payment approvals signed by the site engineer)
• whether s/he was instructed by any other person to approve payment even if not due (e.g. by the RA Chief Executive or a public official)
• whether s/he received any payment, gifts, entertainment or hospitality from BuildWell or any parties in connection with the project (other than salary).

Assess any inconsistency between the Finance Director’s claimed actions and any payment approvals issued (e.g. that issues should have been obvious to the Finance Director, but payment was approved by her/him even though incorrect).

Assess whether the Finance Director was misled by false documentation submitted to her/him, and, if so, who created and submitted those documents.

Investigate the bank accounts of the Finance Director and BuildWell to assess whether there are any receipts from BuildWell, or payments to the Finance Director, or other unexplained receipts or payments.

Interview other senior RA personnel to assess whether they saw anything suspicious (e.g. the Finance Director receiving gifts or hospitality from BuildWell).

To the extent that there is evidence that the Finance Director approved payment which was not due, does the evidence suggest that the approval was:

• reasonable and innocent reliance by the Finance Director on documentation provided by someone else (a reasonable act)
• accidental with no corrupt intent (a genuine mistake)
• negligent with no corrupt intent (approved without checking)
• deliberate with corrupt intent (evidence of receipt of gifts or hospitality would strengthen an argument that it was corrupt).