¹ś²śAV

Fraud, misrepresentation and false certification

Showing 11 - 20 of 69

The UNAT held that because the possible error in the assessment of the facts by the UNDT had no bearing on the outcome of the case, the Secretary-Generalā€™s cross-appeal could not be received.

The UNAT found that although an Ivorian Court judgment, finding the staff member guilty of fraud, had not been cited in the sanction letter, this was inconsequential because it was clear from the record that he had been aware of the judgment when he applied for the position and completed the PHP specifying ā€œnoā€ to the question whether he had ā€œever been indicted, fined or imprisoned for the violation of...

UNAT held that Mr. Salehā€™s complaints of procedural unfairness were unsustainable for the reasons stated by the UNDT and he had not discharged the burden incumbent upon him to satisfy the Appeals Tribunal that the UNDT Judgment was defective in that regard. He merely repeated the untenable submissions he made before the UNDT.

UNAT took note that Mr. Saleh admitted to two counts of fraud. UNAT then held that Mr. Salehā€™s conduct unquestionably damaged the trust relationship and the UNDT was correct to defer to the reasonable conclusion of the Administration that the damage was irreparable and...

The Secretary-General appealed the UNDT Judgment.

The UNAT found that the UNDT failed to address OAIā€™s investigation report, the acceptance of which led to Ms. Lekoetjeā€™s severance from service.  The investigation report was an important evidential element which should have been, but was not, examined and analyzed by the Dispute Tribunal.  The UNDT was wrong to have dismissed the allegations of misconduct against Ms. Lekoetje without considering the investigation reportā€™s evidence of them. 

Because of the intertwined natures of the two relationships between UNDP and Ms. Lekoetje (landlord...

There was clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant engaged in entitlement fraud and received reimbursement for medical services that had not occurred. He falsely certified and submitted three Cigna claims; for which he was paid a total of USD17,171.26. He was not entitled to this reimbursement. As UNDP is self-insured, these funds represented a loss to UNDP.

The Applicantā€™s behaviour fell within what the UNDP Policy against Fraud and other Corrupt practices (approved in October 2018) defines as fraud. The established facts constituted misconduct.

As to proportionality of the...

The UNAT held that the staff member was responsible for having agreed that the UNDT should hear no direct evidence from witnesses in person but should decide the matter on the documents submitted. As an inquisitorial and not a solely adversarial tribunal, the UNDT could nevertheless have held a hearing. The UNAT found that the UNDT was entitled to conclude on the complainantā€™s evidence alone that the staff member had engaged in a sexual relationship with her. Their sexual relationship was employment-related and thereby transactional. The UNDT was entitled to conclude that this was an...

UNAT denied the Appellantā€™s request for an oral hearing and held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the UNAT Rules of Procedure.  UNAT held that the UNDT did not err in striking the evidence filed with the Appellantā€™s closing submissions or in refusing to hear the Appellantā€™s supervisors as witnesses. UNAT held that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Appellant used the UNHCR VAT exemption card and credit card for his personal use and that the disciplinary measure was proportionate to the nature and gravity of...

Ms. Specker appealed. The UNAT held that the essential question is whether the sanction imposed was proportionate.  The principle of proportionality requires that a disciplinary measure imposed on a staff member shall be proportionate to the nature and gravity of his or her misconduct. The UNAT noted that Ms. Speckerā€™s main argument was that the sanction imposed upon her displayed an element of historical inconsistency in that lesser sanctions for similar misconduct had been imposed in other cases.  The implication of her submission is that the failure to impose separation for this kind of...

In all the circumstances, the Respondent failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the basis for the finding of misconduct that led to the Applicantā€™s dismissal.   There was no clear and convincing evidence of any factual basis for a finding that the Applicant committed the actions as alleged. The Tribunal found that due process was observed. However, the failure to interview appropriate witnesses adversely detracted from the standard of proof of misconduct achieved by the Respondent. That standard did not reach the level of a clear and convincing case. Of the remedies sought by the...