Introduction: The Challenges of Accountability in Public Organisation Preventing the instances of fraud within an organisation or a specific community is extremely hard, since the phenomenon and mechanics of accountability, which is being pushed as the key to succeeding in inspiring people for being responsible, have not been studied yet to understand the issues that may emerge once the small universe of interpersonal trust and the sphere of organisation governance collide. No matter how complicated and well thought out the system of organisation management might be and how verified the human resources might be, the instances of fraud will happen, which gives another reason to reconsider the strategies used for securing the organisation and its resources. However, once fraud occurs within a community, it begs a question whether an organisation lacks efficient management, or the company leader has put his or her trust into a wrong person. Definition of accountability: embracing the associated problems Though accountability might seem quite a simple concept to define, in fact, its essence is very hard to nail down, mainly because accountability is often confused with responsibility ( Accountability map n. d., p. 4), the latter being a major part of the phenomenon in question. There are sources that consider accountability restricted to an obligation to give account of an organisation’s fiscal policies: “Another way we encounter public accountability is as conceptual architects of political institutions” (Dowdle 2006, p. 12); other sources assume that accountability also involves various social responsibilities, defining it as “an issue which affects all levels of government and public administration in democratic societies” (Nosworthy 1999, p. 24), which makes the definition quite vague, seeing how social responsibilities are not as easy to list as the financial ones. At present, the definitions provided by Chai (“ public accountability is a major determinant of public service performance” (Chai 2009, p. 59)) and Khan (“ Public accountability is the hallmark of modern democratic governance” (Khan 2008, p. 188) seem the most comprehensive. Forms of accountability related to the case in question Due to the lack of clarity in nailing down the nature and the very phenomenon of accountability, there is also little agreement concerning the forms that accountability may take. There are schools that consider accountability as a wholesome phenomenon that cannot be split into subcategories (i.e., either there is accountability in the community, or there is not), as Moreno does (Mainwaring & Welna 2003, p. 20); others split accountability into two major fields, i. e, politics and everyday issues related accountability (Dowdle 2006, p. 54); some develop a complex system of subcategories into which public accountability can be split (Bovens 2007, p. 104). Since at present, accountability can be categorised into different subtypes in accordance with various parameters ( Topic four: political, Ethical and organisational accountability n. d., p. 255), it will be reasonable to list each of them, giving more detailed descriptions for the ones that are going to be used in the given research. Conflicts of interest, gifts and benefits While it must be admitted that the case in po