A report to the ethics hotline pointed to favoritism toward a supplier. The board commissioned a review of 24 months of purchasing before deciding whether to open a formal investigation.
Sponsored by the board. Requests made through the audit committee, bypassing the purchasing team.
3,215 documents cataloged and triaged. 41 gaps identified.
36 gaps filled. 5 remain open and are disclosed in the report.
All documents read and cross-checked against one another. 12 findings verified against the source.
A report with next steps and a walkthrough meeting with the committee.
The other 9 (5 high, 4 medium) are in the full report.
[Supplier A]'s bank details were changed on 9 August without the required second validation. On 12 August the supplier received the largest payment of the period.
The three quotes come from different suppliers, but repeat the same formatting and the same error in the item description (“preventive maintanance”).
None of the nine orders has a technical report, a gate log or sign-off from the requester. All were paid in full.
What couldn't be read, and why. No finding depends on these documents.
| Action | Findings |
|---|---|
| Preventive block on payments to [Supplier A] | G-03, G-07 |
| Formal inquiry, with interviews of those involved | G-03, G-05, G-07 |
| Recovery of amounts paid without acceptance | G-09 |
| Review of segregation of duties in the ERP | G-07 |
Illustrative case. No real person or company is portrayed.