Managing Conflict of Interest - Organisation for Economic Co ...

126 Managing Conflict of InterestFriends for life: US versus Harvey, Western District of VirginiaThis example is a little more ambiguous. Recently, PIN prosecutedan employee of the Defense Department, a fellow by thename of Harvey, for procurement fraud. Harvey awarded a largegovernment contract to a company owned by a neighbor. Theinvestigation revealed that during the same time that the contractwas being performed, Harvey received thousands of dollars fromthe neighbor which he used to support his own failing businesses.Before the contract expired, Harvey also accepted a job with theneighbor’s business. It turned out that the two had known eachother since childhood.Clearly, the evidence of intent here is not nearly as strong asin the Reyes case. While PIN could and did argue that the moneygiven to Harvey was in return for his awarding his friend the contract(a bribery offense), prosecutors were forced to concede that thetwo were close, that the neighbor had lots of money, and that Harveywas in desperate financial shape. In short, it was more difficultto prove a straight quid pro quo bribery scheme since the moneymay have been given, at least in part, out of a sense of friendship. Inaccordance with US COI statutes, though, PIN could have chargedHarvey with taking “acts affecting a personal financial interest,”as prohibited in Section 208. As it turned out, the jury did see thisfor what is was: a bribery scheme. Nevertheless, the COI statuteallowed PIN the option of charging Harvey with another criminaloffense alongside the bribery counts.The Ronald McDonald House, Veterans Administration Hospital,OhioFinally, this example entails an investigation that uncovered noevidence of corrupt agreement or intent. A few years ago, PIN wasreferred an allegation that a government official was negotiating alease with his own agency. Specifically, the official was a manager ata government hospital. He was also on the board of directors of acharitable foundation that wanted to build a shelter or dormitory onthe grounds of the hospital. The structure was to be used by poorfamilies who needed lodging while visiting their children dying ofcancer in the hospital.A quick look at Section 205 shows government officials maynot represent someone (in this case the charitable foundation) inADB/OECD Anti-Corruption Initiative for Asia and the Pacific