JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Tuesday, March 18, 2025

COVID fraud: More than 700 double payments identified

by

Peter Christopher
1371 days ago
20210617

While the fo­cus of the head­lines in re­cent days has been the lack of ac­count­abil­i­ty with re­gard to funds dis­trib­uted for COVID-19 re­lief by the To­ba­go House of As­sem­bly, the Au­dit Gen­er­al Re­port for 2020 has re­vealed that there have been sev­er­al in­stances of this short­com­ing across min­istries, re­gion­al cor­po­ra­tions and state agen­cies.

In the re­port’s con­clu­sion, this was seen as one of the over­sights in the roll­out of COVID-19 re­lief.

The re­port stat­ed: “It ap­pears that no prop­er mon­i­tor­ing and over­sight was in place for the Min­istries and De­part­ments tasked with the ad­min­is­ter­ing of the COVID-19 ini­tia­tives. Roles and re­spon­si­bil­i­ties were not clear­ly de­fined. Lack of col­lab­o­ra­tion with oth­er rel­e­vant de­part­ments and de­fi­cien­cies in the in­ter­nal con­trols led to the funds al­lo­cat­ed for COVID-19 ini­tia­tives not be­ing used ef­fi­cient­ly and ef­fec­tive­ly.”

The re­port al­so not­ed that the pan­dem­ic ex­posed the lack of plans in place for such a dis­as­ter, as the re­port con­firmed many of these agen­cies did not have up­dat­ed busi­ness con­ti­nu­ity and dis­as­ter re­cov­ery plans.

“This was ev­i­dent when the pan­dem­ic oc­curred and min­istries and de­part­ments were not ful­ly pre­pared to deal with a dis­as­ter of this na­ture,” the re­port said.

The over­sights in ver­i­fi­ca­tion could be seen in some of the key re­lief pro­grammes in­tro­duced dur­ing the pan­dem­ic. In­come and food sup­port re­lief grant, as the au­dit not­ed nu­mer­ous fail­ures to prop­er­ly iden­ti­fy who had re­ceived pay­ments.

The re­port not­ed that there were 49,433 ap­pli­ca­tions for the food sup­port grant, to­talling $75,632,490 in pay­outs while 47,685 ap­pli­cants for In­come Sup­port with $145,467,750 in pay­outs. $221,100,240 would have been dis­trib­uted for both grants up to Sep­tem­ber 30 when the au­dit was com­plet­ed.

There were dis­trib­uted as fol­lows:

• Au­to­mat­ed Clear­ing House— $109,748,610

• Deb­it Card—$51,353,880

• Cheque—$59,997,750

How­ev­er, the re­port’s analy­sis not­ed: “Due to de­fi­cien­cies in in­put con­trols, 75 ap­pli­cants were reg­is­tered twice. This re­sult­ed in 75 ap­pli­cants re­ceiv­ing two pay­ments each for the Food Sup­port Grant and the In­come Sup­port Grant. As a con­se­quence, dou­ble pay­ments to­talling $330,660 were made.”

It was al­so not­ed that there was an in­stance where an ap­pli­cant re­ceived dou­ble pay­ment for the in­come sup­port grant in the amount of $3,000.

The re­port not­ed that while the cri­te­ria for the pay­ments of these grants was on­ly one pay­ment should be made per house­hold, there were nu­mer­ous dis­crep­an­cies sug­gest­ing oth­er­wise with a sum to­tal of over $3 mil­lion be­ing paid to in­di­vid­u­als who may have ben­e­fit­ed more than once.

“Ev­i­dence was not seen that prop­er checks were made to de­ter­mine whether one pay­ment was made per house­hold. In 325 in­stances for pay­ments of In­come Sup­port Grant and 388 in­stances for the Food Sup­port Grant the same bank ac­count num­ber was used by more than one per­son. Pay­ments to these ap­pli­cants to­talled $2,028,000 for the In­come Sup­port Grant and $1,213,290 for the Food Sup­port Grant. Due to the lack of mon­i­tor­ing by the Min­istry, it could not be de­ter­mined whether these pay­ments were made to bona fide ap­pli­cants,” the re­port not­ed.

The re­port al­so recog­nised six in­stances where bank ac­count num­bers were not en­tered for Au­to­mat­ic Clear­ing House (ACH) pay­ments while there was one ap­pli­cant who re­ceived both grants, but there was no name record­ed.

“This in­com­plete in­for­ma­tion in­di­cates a lack of ver­i­fi­ca­tion of in­put. Due to in­com­plete­ness of the data­base, there was dif­fi­cul­ty in de­ter­min­ing whether the monies were ac­tu­al­ly de­posit­ed in­to the ap­pli­cants’ bank ac­counts,” the re­port said.

One iden­ti­fi­ca­tion card was al­so re­port­ed­ly used for six In­come Sup­port Grant records and 20 food sup­port ap­pli­ca­tions.

“This was ver­i­fied by the Elec­tion and Bound­aries Com­mis­sion (EBC). Twen­ty-six pay­ments to­talled $48,600 for both grants.

Each per­son has a unique Na­tion­al ID card num­ber and the data­base is sup­posed to in­di­cate up­on in­put if the ID card num­ber was al­ready in the sys­tem,” the re­port not­ed.

The Salary Re­lief Grant ex­pe­ri­enced few­er dis­crep­an­cies, but they not­ed that 18 in­stances were seen where the Em­ploy­ers’ Na­tion­al In­sur­ance Reg­is­tra­tion num­ber was list­ed as ‘0’ or ‘00000’.

Ev­i­dence was not seen that the min­istry ver­i­fied whether these em­ploy­ers were reg­is­tered with NIBTT.

An analy­sis of both the Salary Re­lief Grant data­base and the In­come Sup­port Data­base re­vealed that 2,672 per­sons re­ceived both grants, with a sum to­tal of $8,115,000 paid out to peo­ple able to ben­e­fit from both.

Re­gion­al cor­po­ra­tions al­so came out short with re­gard to ac­count­ing for the dis­tri­b­u­tion of ham­pers and food cards to those in need.

In its as­sess­ment of the Ch­agua­nas Bor­ough Cor­po­ra­tion, it was not­ed that pay­ments to­talling $331,150 were made for 2,199 ham­pers/vouch­ers as at Sep­tem­ber 30, 2020 “to fa­cil­i­tate hu­man­i­tar­i­an aid in the form of food vouch­ers, phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal vouch­ers, fam­i­ly care pack­ages and child­care gift vouch­ers for all eight elec­toral dis­tricts and the Of­fice of the May­or.”

How­ev­er, the re­port said they on­ly re­ceived list­ings show­ing 680 named per­sons for three out of eight elec­toral dis­tricts.

The re­port not­ed “The list­ings for two dis­tricts did not con­tain par­tic­u­lars of the re­cip­i­ents’ ad­dress or con­tact num­bers. There was no doc­u­men­tary ev­i­dence that any of the in­tend­ed re­cip­i­ents signed for or ac­tu­al­ly re­ceived these ham­pers and the do­na­tions from the cor­po­rate cit­i­zens. “

This phrase would ap­pear con­sis­tent­ly through­out the as­sess­ment of the var­i­ous re­gion­al cor­po­ra­tions in the re­port.

A look at the Diego Mar­tin Re­gion­al Cor­po­ra­tion would bring about a sim­i­lar query.

The re­port not­ed that the DM­RC spent a to­tal of $300,000 in hu­man­i­tar­i­an aid in the form of 1,500 gift cards each val­ued at $200.How­ev­er, dis­tri­b­u­tion lists for 300 gift cards from two out of ten elec­toral dis­tricts were not pro­duced for au­dit.

The re­port states a to­tal of 348 gift cards val­ued at $69,600 were not ac­count­ed for based on the dis­tri­b­u­tion list­ings pro­vid­ed.

In the re­port’s as­sess­ment of with 520 gift cards set aside for four elec­toral dis­tricts, in­con­sis­ten­cies were found. Six­ty-one cards were giv­en with­out any da­ta be­ing sub­mit­ted while there nine in­stances of peo­ple from the same ad­dress or house­hold re­ceiv­ing mul­ti­ple cards. Eleven peo­ple re­ceived cards twice, while 10 times one sig­na­ture was used for mul­ti­ple cards, 35 cards were is­sued un­der such cir­cum­stances.

The re­port not­ed, “there were in­stances with 49 gift cards where batch­es of gift cards were ei­ther signed for by coun­cil­lors, marked off to a De­part­ment or an in­di­vid­ual with no ev­i­dence that any of the in­tend­ed per­sons signed or ac­tu­al­ly re­ceived gift cards.”

Dur­ing a press con­fer­ence held on Tues­day, Fi­nance Min­is­ter Colm Im­bert high­light­ed some of the mea­sures be­ing un­der­tak­en to pre­vent fraud with re­spect to the grants be­ing of­fered by the gov­ern­ment.

“What I can is that we at Fi­nance, we have very ro­bust, very strict sys­tems in place to iden­ti­fy per­sons who are try­ing to com­mit fraud and dou­ble-dip and so on. And with our lat­est on­line dig­i­tal por­tal even more safe­ty fea­tures are be­ing built in­to that,” Im­bert said.

“So it is very, very dif­fi­cult for peo­ple to cheat in terms of our salary re­lief grant. What I can say is that I have had some very en­cour­ag­ing news from the Min­istry of So­cial De­vel­op­ment where they are al­so im­prov­ing their de­tec­tion mech­a­nisms for per­sons who may be want­i­ng to cheat,” he said.

Im­bert said pre­vi­ous­ly some­one would go to the so­cial de­vel­op­ment min­istry and ap­ply for an In­come Sup­port Grant, pre­tend they do not have a NIS num­ber, pre­tend they did not get a Salary Re­lief Grant from the min­istry of fi­nance.

He ad­mit­ted some of those in­di­vid­u­als “slipped through the crack.”

“This year I am en­cour­aged by what I am hear­ing from the min­istry of so­cial de­vel­op­ment in 2020 some of them slipped through the cracks but this year what I am hear­ing is that they are do­ing much bet­ter,” Im­bert said.

He said for May around 4,800 valid ap­pli­ca­tions were made for the In­come Sup­port Grant.

Im­bert said this was a lit­tle small­er than orig­i­nal­ly an­tic­i­pat­ed be­cause of the con­trols that are in place.

“But we are go­ing to con­tin­ue to look at that. We have col­lab­o­ra­tion, we have com­mu­ni­ca­tion be­tween the two min­istries so we will pro­vide them with the list of per­sons we are go­ing to give grants to and they will pro­vide us with the list they are go­ing to give grants to,” Im­bert said.

We will dou­ble-check if the same per­son pops up, the same name the same id card num­ber, the same ad­dress, and so on and that per­son will au­to­mat­i­cal­ly be can­celled out,” Im­bert said,

“So I think we are do­ing much bet­ter in terms of fraud­u­lent be­hav­iour, de­tect­ing it and deal­ing with it,” he said.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored