No abstract

Many recent scandals, such as Dieselgate, Luxleaks, the Panama Papers, and Cambridge Analytica, might never have come to light if "insiders" had not had the courage to speak up about wrongdoing occurring in their workplaces. These are only a few examples of how whistleblowers help detect, investigate, and remedy violations of law that can seriously damage the public interest and the welfare of our citizens and societies. Those who help uncover illegal activities should not have to suffer any personal or professional disadvantages or even be punished because of their actions. However, reality has repeatedly shown that whistleblowers take high personal risks with their jobs, their reputations, or even their health. They often end up paying a high price: many are fired, demoted, harassed, sued, or blacklisted. Without sufficient legal protection against retaliation and reliable avenues to report wrongdoing, it is only natural that potential whistleblowers are reluctant to come forward with their concerns.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore whether opportunities for fraud and corruption might be reduced or increased by rules governing public procurement. The focus is on specific European legislation – Procurement Directive 2004/18 on the coordination of procedures for the award of contracts for public works, public supply and public services by public bodies within all EU Member States – however similar issues would arise in other jurisdictions.Design/methodology/approachThe procurement process is examined in relation to three stages of procedure: preparation of specifications, selection of tenderers, and execution of contracts, within each of which some specific risks (red flags) are identified.FindingsParticular risks that may not have been sufficiently addressed, in terms of research or legislation, arise at the first of these stages; accordingly this paper focuses there. Generally, risks are summarised in terms of insider‐driven specifications, low visibility of procurement processes, and ample opportunities for renegotiation of terms. Risks may be increased by innovative procurement practices that have the effect of extending the manoeuvring between tenderers and public bodies, such as competitive dialogue.Research limitations/implicationsFraud and corruption risk in public procurement is an area deserving detailed and comparative study, with special attention to the pre‐contracting stage. Research on this topic within EU Member States should go hand in hand with enquiry into international procurement, and into the EC's own rules as applied by its institutions and bodies.Practical implicationsSuggestions for risk‐reduction are put forward in relation to quality standards and pre‐award publicity.Originality/valueAfter some time as the Cinderella of crime policies, large‐scale frauds attract greater interest. This paper gives grounds for asking whether, in relation to procurement fraud, a combination of traditional practices and modernisation may outpace anti‐fraud measures.

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to analyse the extent to which the (changing) European Union (EU) constitutional context impacts on the investigation of fraud affecting the EU budget, with a focus on fraud affecting expenditure. Design/methodology/approach -The paper is based on legal issues perceived by a European law specialist working within OLAF. The legal framework and several cases are used to illustrate various difficulties in operational work. First of all, the paper argues that cooperation between EU bodies such as Europol, Eurojust, the European Judicial Network and European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) is not yet optimal. Nor is the legal framework for OLAF's work. Internal blockages exist. This is illustrated in relation to a number of operational issues. Findings -The paper argues that much has been achieved through secondary legislation in the criminal law sphere under the Treaty of Nice but real difficulties continue at the operational level. As far as operational cooperation, effectiveness and defence rights are concerned, some of the legal problems and internal blockages identified here can be removed regardless of the eventual situation in relation to the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor.Research limitations/implications -The paper focuses on legal problems and blockages experienced by OLAF investigators in the present legal framework. Practical implications -The paper should be of interest to anyone engaging in the study of anti-fraud enforcement and to investigators and prosecutors. Originality/value -The paper provides an insight into European Commission anti-fraud enforcement.

No abstract