Pursuant to Sanctions Board Decision No. 83 issued in Sanctions Case No. 202, the Sanctions Board imposes (i) a sanction of debarment on the First Respondent Firm for a period of one (1) year and (ii) a sanction of reprimand on the Second Respondent Firm by means of a letter of reprimand to be publicly posted on the Bank¡¯s website for a period of three (3) months. The Sanctions Board finds that it is more likely than not that the First Respondent Firm and the Second Respondent Firm engaged in four distinct fraudulent practices as defined in Paragraph 1.22(a)(ii) of the ÐÓ°ÉÂÛ̳¡¯s Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants by ÐÓ°ÉÂÛ̳ Borrowers (May 2004) (the ¡°May 2004 Consultant Guidelines¡±) by misrepresenting and failing to disclose certain facts during and after the selection process for a Bank-financed contract and submitting false documents in support of payment requests during the execution of that contract.
Also by this decision, the Sanctions Board finds insufficient evidence to conclude that it is more likely than not that the named affiliate in this case (the ¡°Named Affiliate¡±) is liable for the fraudulent practices of the First Respondent Firm and the Second Respondent Firm, and therefore declares that the sanctions proceedings against the Named Affiliate are terminated.