The SafeNet Project Strenghten Anti Fraud European 

Network

Padua (IT)

February 7‐9th 2017

This event is supported by the European Union Programme Hercule III (2014‐2020). This programme is implemented by the European Commission. 

It was established to promote activities in the field of the protection of the financial interests of the European Union. (for more information see http://ec.europa.eu/anti‐fraud/policy/hercule_en)

MEETING DAY

Something ”About us”Creating network opportunities 

Grzegorz Kępiński / Joanna SusabowskaChief Specialist / Chief Specjalist

Padua (IT), February 7th 2017

That it reflects the author’s view and the European Commission is not responsible for the views displayed in the publicationsand/or in conjunction with the activities for which the grant is used.

The information contained in this publication does not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the European Commission.

Anti‐Fraud Policy Objectives in ARMA:

introduction and use of efficient tools designed to minimise or eliminate the risk of frauds with regard to financial assistance granted by the Agency;

support of management control elements of the Agency, facilitating prevention, detection and correction of financial frauds, ensuring their conduct in a correct and timely manner;

ensuring appropriate deterrent against financial frauds.

About usand network opportunities

About usand network opportunities

About ARMA Relevant elements of AF systems Our best practices Case Studies Proposals for the system of prevention and detection of 

fraud

About us Rural areas in Poland:

The Polish rural areas are inhabited by app. 40% of the Polish population.

Poland is ranked 2nd in the EU ‐ in the number of agricultural holdings (19 % of all holdings in the enlarged EU). 

1,4 mln of agricultural holdings above 1 ha of surface Average area of arable land in agricultural holdings in Poland ‐ 10,5 ha   (ARMA’s data)

About us ARMA Organisational Structure ‐ 3 levels:

1994Headquarters in Warsaw

2000Regional Offices in each voivodship (16) 

2002Local Offices in each poviat (314) 

About us ARMA’s Customer Profile

Who do we serve?

Farmers Rural Citizens Food Enterprises Producer Groups Local Action Groups Self‐governments  (local authorities) State Forestry Fisheries sector

About us Tasks implemented by ARMA in the years 1994‐2016

1994‐2003 2004‐2006 2007‐2013 2014‐2020

SAPARD Programme 2002-2004

RDP 2004-2006

SOP „Fisheries…2004-2006"

SOP „Restructuring… 2004-2006”

RDP 2007-2013EAFRD +national budget

OP „Sustainable development of the fisheries sector…

2007-2013”(EFF + national budget)

Directsupportschemessince2004(EuropeanAgriculturalGuaranteeFund)

CommonMarketOrganisationofFruitandVegetablessince2004(EuropeanAgriculturalGuaranteeFund)

Animalidentificationandregistrationsystemsince2004

Stateaidsince1994(supportfromthestatebudget)

RDP 2014-2020(EAFRD + national

budget)

OP „Fisheries and Sea”2014-2020

(EMFF + national budget)

About us Financial envelopes  for direct payments 

and rural development 2014‐2020, (without national input), in bln EUR 62,4

43,8 42,4

37,1

32,127,6

20,418,2

12,3 10,7 8,8 8,3 8,1 7,7 6,9 6,6 6 5,9 4,9 4,6 4,2 3,7 2,7 1,8 1,7 0,5 0,3 0,1

Fran

ceG

erm

any

Spa

inIta

lyPo

land

Uni

ted

Kin

dom

Rom

ania

Gre

ece

Hun

gary

Irela

ndA

ustri

aC

zech

Rep

ublic

Por

luga

lB

ulga

riaD

enm

ark

Sw

eden

Finl

and

The

Net

herla

nds

Lith

uani

aS

lova

kia

Bel

gium

Cro

atia

Latv

iaS

love

nia

Est

onia

Cyp

rus

Luks

embu

rgM

alta

Relevant elements of AF systems 

„The policy to combat fraud”, Organizational structure, Tracking systems (Irregularities Register, Criminal Proceedings 

Register, the Reports Registry), Fraud risk periodic analisys, „The list of fraud symptoms”  Checks on the efficiency of security mechanisms for abuses, Fraud detection training for emloyees,  Participation in working groups and EU projects related to the 

prevention of fraud.

Relevant elements of AF systems 

Irregularities Register Criminal Proceedings Register the Reports Registry

Identification of sensitive processes

Internal and external controls and audits 

results

The list of fraud symptoms

Analisys

Corrective actions and monitoring

Procedures and internal regulations

Training for fraud and abuse detection

Risk analysis and internal controls

Third party sources informations (Central 

Anti‐Corruption Bureau, Tax 

Inspection Office)

Our best practices 

1. Analysis of the existing administrative procedures andmonitoring to determine the effectiveness.

2. Cyclic analyzes on the risk of fraud for individualactions based on implemented regular analyzes.

3. The list of fraud symptoms.

4. Raising the awareness of employees in the detection offraud.

Our best practices 

5. Participation in the regional working groups. Prevent irregularities and crimes affecting the financial interests of the European Union, which include representatives of entities whose activities are closely related to the area of a region :  Representatives of the Provincal Office,  Representatives of Polish Agency for Enterprise Development, Representatives of Marshal Office, Representatives of Police Headquarters,  Representatives of Agricultural Market Agency,  Representatives of Unit of EU Programmes Implementation,  Przedstawiciele Tax Inspection Office Przedstawiciele National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water 

Management.

Our best practices 

Analysis of the existing administrative procedures and monitoring to determine the effectiveness

Identify risks of fraud sheets analysis

Identify fraud risk sheets of certain risks (Gross)

Definition of control mechanisms and risk obtained after their application (net risk),Monitoring the effectiveness of prevention, detection and recovery.

Specific Departments of ARMA(Responsible for the implemented action)

Our best practices 

Cyclic analyzes of the data contained in the Criminal Proceedings Register

Detection of existing connections and/or similarities between thereported abuses in order to properly determine the adequateresponse to establish effective security mechanisms.

Our best practices 

Regular analyzes of the data contained in the Criminal Proceedings Register

Submission of third‐party applications for direct payments to deceasedpersons, counterfeit signatures,,

Counterfeit stamps postal envelope transferring fill in the gaps in the proposalin order to keep the deadline of the application

Simulating events in order to introduce an artificial entity, rather than theactual establishment of a group of agricultural producers. Fragmentation ofproduction among more people. Group of agricultural producers has beencreated due to the production potential of two of its members, the other 4 didnot lead earlier activity of the product, due to which the group has beencreated.

Study Cases

Our best practices 

Regular analyzes of the data contained in the Register of Criminal Proceedings

Follow‐up: informing the departments of substantive abuses high‐risk, identifying the weak points of processes (if any exist), in justified cases, the recommendation appropriate changes in 

procedures, the security mechanisms controls, update the list of fraud symptoms

Our best practices 

The list of fraud symptoms

The most common and carrying the highest risk of fraud signs for specified elements include:Submitting falsified, certifying untruth, of unreliable documents,Submission of false school certificates,Backdating of mail in the filing of mail from a converted postmark,Submitting fake offers to purchase and / or execution of the service,Submitting invoices not confirming the actual economic events ‐ the falsecharges,The deliberate creation of artificial conditions,Bid rigging in public procurement

Our best practices 

Raising employee awareness of abuse ‐ training

Training for all employees ARMA ranging from "Identification and prevention of fraud in ARMA”

Training was held for all employees ARMA involved in the processing of applications.

The newly employed persons also undergo such training 

Network & opportunities

Proposals for the system of prevention and detection of fraud:

Information exchange on abuses with other Member States based on IMS made avaliable through IMS and shared .   

Creation a international system to identify abuse within the framework of cooperation. 

Transmission of information on detected fraud and abuse mechanisms within the framework of the common system to identify misuse of EU funds.