Yes. A KAS audit or CBA control may also begin after the project has been settled by PARP, NCBR or another funding institution. In certain circumstances, the project may also come under scrutiny from the public prosecutor\u2019s office or the European Public Prosecutor\u2019s Office (EPPO). <\/p>\n\n
<\/p>\n\n
The legal basis for audits conducted by KAS is Article 95 of the Act on the National Revenue Administration<\/a>. Under that provision, an audit may examine the management of public funds, in particular the way in which they were used and compliance with the applicable funding conditions. In relation to public funds, the audit focuses in particular on assessing: <\/p>\n\n Effectiveness means assessing whether the objective for which public funds were granted has been achieved. Efficiency concerns the relationship between the resources used and the results achieved. Economy, in turn, involves assessing whether expenditure was incurred in a rational and appropriate manner. <\/p>\n\n This means that auditors do not limit themselves to checking whether an invoice was paid or whether a particular document is on file. Their primary concern is whether public funds were actually used for their intended purpose and whether they contributed to achieving the expected results. <\/p>\n\n The audit is intended to answer fundamental questions, including whether:<\/p>\n\n For more on the significance of audit findings, the audit report and the possible subsequent consequences for the funding recipient, see: KAS audit \u2013 what does it mean for a funding recipient<\/a>?<\/p>\n\n In public debate, the activities of the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau (CBA) are most often associated with arrests, searches and criminal proceedings. From the perspective of a funding recipient implementing a project financed by NCBR, PARP or another funding institution, however, the first stage may simply involve an analysis of the project documentation. <\/p>\n\n In the course of control proceedings, CBA officers may request documents relating to the project under review and require detailed explanations. The scope of such requests can be very broad. Experience from advising funding recipients shows that the authorities may be interested, among other things, in: <\/p>\n\n The scope of documents requested during an audit depends in each case on the subject of the authority\u2019s inquiry. From the funding recipient\u2019s perspective, it is particularly important to ensure consistency between the project documentation, payment applications, accounting records and the actual course of project implementation. If changes were introduced during implementation, it is also important to determine whether they were properly reported to the funding institution and whether approval was required. In practice, a project audit may therefore cover both the correctness of expenditure and the manner in which obligations arising from the funding agreement were performed. Officers may also request information on the timing of individual payment applications, the manner in which procurement procedures were conducted, or documents confirming market research and compliance with competition rules. Before providing documentation, it is therefore worth establishing precisely the scope of the authority\u2019s request and the issues to which it relates. <\/p>\n\n This is one of the aspects that most often surprises businesses. Funding recipients tend to assume that if a project has been settled by PARP or NCBR and the funding institution has confirmed that the project was properly settled, the matter is definitively closed. <\/p>\n\n In practice, however, the authorities may become interested in the project much later. For grants financed from national funds, the control period is usually five years. A similar period applies to EU funds, although its starting point may be calculated differently. As a result, a control<\/a> may take place even after the sustainability period<\/a> has ended, where that period was three years for an SME. <\/p>\n\n Project documentation should therefore not be treated merely as a formality needed to settle another payment application. From the funding recipient\u2019s perspective, it is equally important to be able to reconstruct how the project was implemented several years after its completion. <\/p>\n\n Not necessarily, although the media context may understandably cause concern for funding recipients. A request for documents, a demand for explanations, or the commencement of control activities does not in itself mean that the authority has identified a breach or concluded that the funding recipient committed an irregularity<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n The primary purpose of an audit or control is to establish the facts and assess how public funds were used. Only after analysing the documents collected can the authority reach conclusions as to whether the project was implemented correctly. <\/p>\n\n A letter from KAS or the CBA should not be treated simply as a request to supplement project documentation. What matters is not only responding within the deadline, but also ensuring that the response is consistent with the project documentation and the actual course of events. <\/p>\n\n The first step is to determine precisely what the authority is requesting. A request for copies of specified documents raises different issues from a request to provide a chronology of events at the company\u2019s premises, and different issues again from questions concerning particular payments, contractors, individuals or stages of the project. <\/p>\n\n\n
\n
What about the CBA?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n
\n
A control may take place many years after the project has ended<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n
Does a control mean that an irregularity has occurred?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n
I have received a letter from KAS or the CBA. What should I do next? <\/strong><\/h2>\n\n