Skip to content


Harry Cassin
Publisher and Editor

Andy Spalding
Senior Editor

Jessica Tillipman
Senior Editor

Bill Steinman
Senior Editor

Richard L. Cassin
Editor at Large

Elizabeth K. Spahn
Editor Emeritus

Cody Worthington
Contributing Editor

Julie DiMauro
Contributing Editor

Thomas Fox
Contributing Editor

Marc Alain Bohn
Contributing Editor

Bill Waite
Contributing Editor

Shruti J. Shah
Contributing Editor

Russell A. Stamets
Contributing Editor

Richard Bistrong
Contributing Editor

Eric Carlson
Contributing Editor

How does the World Bank determine who it can sanction?

In recent years, the World Bank Group has responded to overlapping global and regional crises with record levels of financial support. It is critical to ensure that these important development funds are used only for their intended purposes. To this end, the World Bank Group has a robust sanctions system to hold companies or individuals accountable if they misuse these funds in fraudulent or corrupt ways.

Some allegations, however, are tinged with ambiguity, and the facts of a matter may not be clear-cut. How does an organization like the World Bank Group determine what actions and behaviors meet its definition of sanctionable misconduct? How does it determine who may be subject to a sanction?  

For the World Bank Group, its Sanctions Board makes such determinations through careful reviews of contested sanctions cases that offer parties a final opportunity to be heard through both written submissions and oral hearings. Since it was fully constituted in 2007, the Sanctions Board has established itself as the model of an independent, effective, fair, and transparent sanctions tribunal. Critically, it functions to continuously clarify and refine the reach and bounds of the sanctions system through its publicly available body of precedent-setting decisions.

To illustrate the Sanctions Board’s role, let’s examine a core dispute that arises in most sanctions cases: whether the conduct at issue has crossed the line from permissible business practices to prohibited acts of fraud or corruption. The Sanctions Board has the important task of drawing these lines, and it has done so in a range of contexts. One recent example arose in a dispute regarding the scope of a bidder’s disclosure obligations. World Bank-financed contracts generally require bidders to make an array of disclosures. If a bidder fails to make a requisite disclosure, they risk subjecting themselves to possible sanctions for fraud. 

In Decision No. 136, the Sanctions Board resolved a dispute regarding the propriety of the respondent’s non-disclosure of payments to a third party. In that case, the World Bank argued that the respondent engaged in fraud because he knowingly failed to disclose commissions paid to an agent in connection with a procurement process. Referring to his company’s broad business relationship with the firm, the respondent argued, inter alia, that he did not consider the firm to be the type of “simple sales agent” requiring disclosure. The Sanctions Board declined to adopt the respondent’s narrow reading of the term “agent,” observing that a key purpose of the disclosure requirement established in the bidding documents is to “help reveal and deter potentially corrupt relationships in Bank-Financed Projects.”  

By clarifying the scope of the respondent’s disclosure obligations, the Sanctions Board has enhanced the World Bank’s ability to scrutinize those who might participate in or benefit from the projects it finances—while at the same time highlighting when non-disclosures may constitute a fraudulent practice.

Disputes have also arisen as to the types of respondents who may be subject to sanctions. For instance, in Decision No. 78, the Sanctions Board distinguished between public officials (a term which includes individuals taking or reviewing selection or procurement process decisions) and government officials, who, when acting in their official capacity, are outside the jurisdiction of the Bank’s sanctions regime. In that decision, the Sanctions Board held that a public official may be sanctioned provided that it is determined, as a factual matter, that the individual was not also a government official. 

Consistent with this early precedent, the Sanctions Board debarred a public official in the recently issued Decision No. 133. There, the Sanctions Board found that the public official, an individual carrying out project management functions under Bank-financed contracts, solicited and received payments from a contractor participating in the project. By clarifying the reach of its sanctions, the Sanctions Board strengthens the World Bank’s ability to safeguard its critical development funds. 

In these ways, the Sanctions Board supports the global fight against corruption by holding bad actors to account and explaining its reasoning through public decisions. This transparency, in turn, deters future misconduct by helping businesses learn about the bounds of permissible conduct.

Share this post


Comments are closed for this article!