type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' HOTLINE ALLEGATIONS REGARDING ACCOUNTING\n FOR THE DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY\n WORKING CAPITAL FUND\n\n\nReport No. D-2001-123 May 21, 2001\n\n\n\n\n Office of the Inspector General\n Department of Defense\n\x0c Additional Copies\n\n To obtain additional copies of this audit report, visit the Inspector General, DoD,\n Home Page at www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/reports or contact the Secondary Reports\n Distribution Unit of the Audit Followup and Technical Support Directorate at\n (703) 604-8937 (DSN 664-8937) or fax (703) 604-8932.\n\n Suggestions for Future Audits\n\n To suggest ideas for or to request future audits, contact the Audit Followup and\n Technical Support Directorate at (703) 604-8940 (DSN 664-8940) or\n fax (703) 604-8932. Ideas and requests can also be mailed to:\n\n OAIG-AUD (ATTN: AFTS Audit Suggestions)\n Inspector General, Department of Defense\n 400 Army Navy Drive (Room 801)\n Arlington, VA 22202-4704\n\n Defense Hotline\n\n To report fraud, waste, or abuse, contact the Defense Hotline by calling\n (800) 424-9098; by sending an electronic message to Hotline@dodig.osd.mil; or\n by writing to the Defense Hotline, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1900.\n The identity of each writer and caller is fully protected.\n\n\n\n\nAcronyms\nDFAS Defense Finance and Accounting Service\nDISA Defense Information Systems Agency\nDECC Defense Enterprise Computing Centers\n\x0c\x0c Office of the Inspector General, DoD\nReport No. D-2001-123 May 21, 2001\n (Project No. D2000FC-0249)\n\n Hotline Allegations Regarding Accounting for the Defense\n Information Systems Agency Working Capital Fund\n\n Executive Summary\n\nIntroduction. We performed this audit in response to a complaint made to the Defense\nHotline. The complainant alleged that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service\n(DFAS) improperly accounted for funds in the Defense Information Systems Agency\n(DISA) Working Capital Fund. The complainant alleged that more than $400 million\nin cross-disbursements (those made by organizations that did not perform accounting\nfor DISA) could not be matched with liabilities, a substantial amount of expenses may\nnot have been recorded, and that both DFAS and DISA delayed in resolving these\nproblems to manipulate the DISA financial statements, making the operating results and\nreimbursable rates more favorable. The allegations were related to the Defense\nEnterprise Computing Centers business area, which is one of the two business areas\nwithin the DISA Working Capital Fund. The FY 2000 financial statements for the\nDefense Enterprise Computing Centers business area reported assets of $205.5 million,\nliabilities of $23.8 million, and expenditures of $586.1 million.\n\nCross-disbursements have created DoD-wide problems in matching disbursements and\ncollections to proper supporting documentation. Disbursements that cannot be matched\nto supporting documentation and accepted by the accounting station are often referred\nto as undistributed or problem disbursements. A discussion of the allegations and\nconclusions is in Appendix B.\n\nObjectives. The overall audit objective was to determine the validity of the allegations\nconcerning the failures to record cross-disbursements, the existence of unrecorded\nexpenses, and the efforts to resolve and disclose undistributed disbursements. We also\nreviewed the DFAS Cleveland and DFAS Pensacola management control programs as\nthey related to our audit objective.\n\nResults. We partially substantiated the allegation that a substantial amount of cross-\ndisbursements could not be matched to liabilities. Also, we partially substantiated the\nallegation that efforts to resolve and disclose undistributed disbursements were slow.\nHowever, we did not substantiate the allegation that supportable expenditures were not\nrecorded in the accounting records for DISA or that DISA and DFAS were trying to\nmanipulate the financial statements.\n\nDFAS Cleveland reported $198.1 million of net undistributed disbursements in the\nSeptember 2000 DISA Defense Enterprise Computing Centers business area statement\n\x0cof financial position. Of the $198.1 million, $190.8 million (96 percent) was related to\nundistributed disbursements that occurred prior to FY 1997. However, DFAS and\nDISA have not been able to agree on how these undistributed disbursements should be\nresolved. As a result, the FY 2000 financial statements prepared by DFAS Cleveland\nfor the DISA Defense Enterprise Computing Centers business area could not be relied\non to be a complete and accurate presentation of financial reporting. The problem, if\nnot corrected, will hinder DISA efforts to obtain a favorable audit opinion in future\nyears. For details of the audit results, see the Finding section of the report.\n\nSummary of Recommendations. We recommend that the Under Secretary of Defense\n(Comptroller) include a review of the undistributed disbursements in its DoD-wide\neffort to review cash balances for Defense Working Capital Funds, and at the\nconclusion of that review require a prior period adjustment for the DISA share of any\nremaining undistributed disbursements that cannot be allocated to other organizations\nbased on the results of the DoD-wide review. We also recommend that DFAS\nColumbus locate the supporting documentation for the undistributed disbursements that\nshould have been received by DFAS Pensacola.\n\nManagement Comments. DISA nonconcurred with a recommendation in the draft\nreport to request the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) for authority to write\noff net undistributed disbursements from inactive subheads to Non-Recoverable\nAccumulated Operating Results because DISA believed those disbursements had\nalready been expensed. Therefore, entering the disbursements as an expense again\nwould cause a double costing of the items in question. DFAS agreed to locate\nsupporting documentation for undistributed disbursements and DFAS Columbus is in\nthe process of researching the request to provide the appropriate documentation. See\nthe Finding section for a discussion of management comments and the Management\nComments section for the complete text of management comments.\n\nAudit Response. Based on additional audit work and a joint initiative by the Under\nSecretary of Defense (Comptroller) and DFAS requesting an accounting firm to review\naccount balances for DoD-wide working capital funds, we revised and redirected the\nrecommendation to the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller). We request that the\nUnder Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) respond to this report by June 21, 2001.\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\x0cTable of Contents\n\nExecutive Summary i\n\n\nIntroduction\n Background 1\n Objectives 2\n\nFinding\n Resolving Undistributed Disbursements 3\n\nAppendixes\n A. Audit Process\n Scope 10\n Methodology 11\n Management Control Program Review 11\n Prior Coverage 12\n B. Hotline Allegations and Audit Results 13\n C. Report Distribution 15\n\nManagement Comments\n Defense Finance and Accounting Service 17\n Defense Information Systems Agency 19\n\x0cBackground\n Hotline Allegations. This audit was conducted in response to a complaint made\n to the Defense Hotline. The complainant alleged that the Defense Finance and\n Accounting Service (DFAS) improperly accounted for funds in the Defense\n Information Systems Agency (DISA) Working Capital Fund. Included in the\n complaint were allegations that:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 DFAS Cleveland recorded a $200 million cash overdraft as positive\n equity rather than a cash overdraft on the FY 1998 Defense Information\n Systems Agency financial statements. (The complaint stated that the\n problem was corrected at the end of FY 1999.)\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 More than $400 million of cross-disbursements could not be matched with\n liabilities, indicating that a substantial amount of expenses may not have\n been recorded.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 DFAS and DISA have been slow to resolve the problems so financial\n statements could be manipulated to make the operating results and\n reimbursable rates appear more favorable.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 DFAS Cleveland took unjustified personnel actions to prevent personnel\n from resolving problems identified.\n\n See Appendix B for a complete discussion of the allegations. See the finding for\n audit conclusions and recommendations on how to resolve the disbursements\n that cannot be matched to supporting documentation.\n\n DISA Working Capital Fund. The DISA Defense Working Capital Fund is\n financed on a reimbursable basis designed to provide an effective means of\n financing, budgeting, accounting for, and controlling resources as well as the\n costs of providing products and services used to support both peace and wartime\n operations. The DISA Working Capital Fund is divided into two large business\n areas\xe2\x80\x94Communications Information Services Activity and Defense Enterprise\n Computing Centers (DECC). DISA provides a range of common user products\n and services found in the commercial sector that include telecommunication\n services, information technology products and services, customized\n procurement, automated data processing, and maintenance for the DoD\n community and other approved organizations. The FY 2000 financial\n statements for DISA reported assets of $581 million, liabilities of\n $517.6 million, and expenditures of $2.4 billion. The DISA-DECC business\n area portion of total assets, liabilities, and expenditures was $205.5 million,\n $23.8 million, and $586.1 million, respectively.\n\n Role of the DFAS Cleveland and DFAS Pensacola. Prior to FY 1996, DFAS\n Columbus, DFAS Indianapolis, and DFAS Denver performed the detail-level\n accounting for DISA-DECC business area. At the end of FY 1996, DFAS\n Denver and DFAS Indianapolis ceased transmitting accounting data for 16 of the\n DISA-DECC business area activities. At the end of FY 1997, DFAS Columbus\n\n 1\n\x0c ceased transmitting accounting data for approximately 36 DISA-DECC\n organizations. In FY 1995, the subhead 5F331 came into existence and is\n maintained by DFAS Pensacola.\n\n DFAS Cleveland and DFAS Pensacola provided finance and accounting support\n for the DISA Working Capital Fund. However, various offices in DISA\n recorded commitments, obligations, and accruals for the fund using the\n Industrial Fund Accounting System. DFAS Pensacola maintained that system\n for DISA-DECC and recorded disbursements and other accounting information\n for DISA-DECC. DFAS Cleveland maintained departmental accounting records\n and prepared financial statements using data provided by DFAS Pensacola and\n other sources.\n\nObjectives\n The overall audit objective was to determine the validity of the allegations\n concerning the failure to record cross-disbursements, the existence of\n unrecorded expenses, and efforts to resolve and disclose undistributed\n disbursements. We also reviewed the DFAS Cleveland and DFAS Pensacola\n management control programs as they related to our audit objective.\n Appendix A discusses the audit scope and methodology and our review of the\n management control program.\n\n\n\n\n1\n The subhead is a four-digit suffix to the U.S. Treasury account number (basis symbol). The subhead is\n used to identify a subdivision of funds that restricts the amount or use for a certain purpose or identifies\n subelements with the account for management purposes.\n\n 2\n\x0c Resolving Undistributed Disbursements\n We partially substantiated the allegation that a substantial amount of\n cross-disbursements could not be matched to liabilities. Also, we\n partially substantiated the allegation that efforts to resolve and disclose\n undistributed disbursements were slow. However, we did not\n substantiate the allegation that supportable expenditures were not\n recorded in the accounting records for DISA or that DISA and DFAS\n were trying to manipulate the financial statements.\n\n The DFAS Cleveland reported $198.1 million of net undistributed\n disbursements in the September 2000 DISA-DECC statement of financial\n position.2 Of the $198.1 million, $190.8 million (96 percent) was related\n to undistributed disbursements that occurred prior to FY 1997.\n However, as of December 2000, DFAS Arlington and DISA had not\n been able to resolve the $190.8 million in undistributed disbursements\n because supporting documentation could not be located for those net\n undistributed disbursements. As a result, the FY 2000 financial\n statements prepared by the DFAS Cleveland for the DISA-DECC\n business area could not be relied on to be a complete and accurate\n presentation of financial reporting. If not corrected, the problem will\n hinder DISA efforts to obtain a favorable audit opinion in future years.\n\n\nBackground\n Cross-disbursements and Undistributed Disbursements. Cross-disbursement\n transactions are disbursements and collections made by a disbursing office\n assigned to one DFAS site and accounted for by an accountable station assigned\n to another DFAS site, DoD Component, or Federal agency. Undistributed\n disbursements represent the amount of disbursements, as reported by the finance\n network, which have not been accepted by the operating level accounting entity.\n\n Disbursing agents in the DoD and other Federal agencies disburse funds and\n report disbursements directly to the Department of the Treasury in the month of\n disbursal. Accounting offices responsible for recording the disbursements into\n the general ledger accounts do not receive the cash disbursement information\n until a later date. When the accounting office receives the cash disbursement\n information, the information may not contain the necessary data for the\n accounting offices to properly distribute to the fiscal station responsible for the\n disbursements. Accordingly, the lack of necessary data often creates a situation\n where the Department of the Treasury and the accounting office general ledger\n\n\n\n2\n DFAS Cleveland prepared a monthly statement of financial position (M-1307 Report). Information\n supporting that statement was used to prepare the annual financial statements in support of the Chief\n Financial Officers Act.\n\n 3\n\x0c accounts for disbursements are not equal, thus creating undistributed\n disbursements. To properly account for the discrepancies, the accounting office\n should perform monthly reconciliation of undistributed disbursements.\n\n DoD-wide Problem Disbursements. Problem disbursements are disbursements\n that have not been, or cannot be, reconciled with official accounting records.\n Problem disbursements include both undistributed disbursements and unmatched\n disbursements. DoD and DFAS have recognized that problem disbursements\n occur throughout DoD and have extensive efforts underway to improve the\n disbursement process. Since 1992, DFAS has reported the undistributed and\n unmatched cross-disbursing and interfund transactions as a material control\n weakness in its Annual Statement of Assurance and developed a business plan to\n provide a centrally focused management effort to reduce the continued\n occurrence of undistributed disbursements. Also, DoD reported in its FY 1999\n DoD annual financial statements that problem disbursements in DoD had as of\n September 1999 decreased from once totaling $34.3 billion to a total of\n $5.5 billion.\n\n\nDISA-DECC Undistributed Disbursements\n Recording Cross-Disbursements. During FY 1995 and FY 1996, information\n relating to the disbursements made by other disbursing stations and DFAS for\n DISA-DECC was sent directly to the Department of the Treasury. However,\n details of cash disbursement information was never sent to DFAS Cleveland and\n DFAS Pensacola for processing to DISA accounting records. As a result, a\n discrepancy between the Department of the Treasury and DISA-DECC\n accounting records existed. The problem became evident during FY 1997 and\n FY 1998 when the DISA-DECC statement of financial position showed a build\n up of undistributed disbursements. Based on information received, a significant\n amount of undistributed disbursements for FY 1997 and FY 1998 was based on\n disbursements made in FY 1995 and FY 1996 but never recorded in DISA\n accounting records. Review of accounting records maintained at DFAS\n Cleveland and DFAS Pensacola showed that the undistributed disbursements\n occurred because cross-disbursements of $453.5 million were not posted in the\n DISA accounting records. Of the $453.5 million in cross-disbursements in\n question, $294 million pertained to active subhead 5F33; the remaining\n $159.5 million pertained to DISA inactive subheads 5F30, 5F31, and 5F32.\n\n Correcting Actions Taken by DFAS and DFAS Pensacola. According to the\n Defense Hotline complaint, DFAS personnel were slow in initially researching\n and obtaining vouchers to support expenditures made by other DFAS locations.\n However, beginning in FY 1999, DFAS Cleveland and DFAS Pensacola\n accounting personnel aggressively researched and obtained vouchers for about\n $251 million in undistributed disbursements related to active subhead 5F33.\n Also, the Industrial Fund Accounting System was able to process an additional\n $11.7 million in undistributed disbursements pertaining to active subhead 5F33.\n The remaining $190.8 million was still unresolved because supporting vouchers\n for the summary net disbursements could not be located. Of the $190.8 million,\n\n 4\n\x0c $31.3 million pertained to active subhead 5F33. The remaining $159.5 million\n pertained to inactive subheads 5F30, 5F31, and 5F32, which DFAS Columbus,\n DFAS Indianapolis, and DFAS Denver used before the subheads were\n inactivated. As of September 30, 2000, the unresolved undistributed\n disbursements of $190.8 million are shown in the table below.\n\n\n Undistributed Disbursements Reported for\n Active and Inactive Subheads\n (dollars in millions)\n\n Description Active Inactive Total\n\n Undistributed Disbursements $294.0 $159.5 $453.5\n\n Researched by DFAS Personnel (251.0) 0 (251.0)\n\n Processed by Accounting System ( 11.7) 0 (11.7)\n\n Unresolved Amount $ 31.3 $159.5 $190.8\n\n\n\n A review of current accounting procedures at DFAS Pensacola showed that\n current undistributed disbursements related to subhead 5F33 were reconciled on\n a monthly basis and only $7.2 million in net undistributed disbursements were\n reported on the DISA-DECC September 2000 statement of financial position.\n Also, in FY 2000, in an effort to resolve the undistributed disbursement issues,\n DFAS Arlington formed a team of personnel from DFAS Arlington, DISA\n headquarters, DFAS Indianapolis, DFAS Cleveland, and DFAS Pensacola to\n meet and review the process and the procedures related to controlling and\n tracking expenditure information. Jointly, the team developed a plan of action\n and milestones that would resolve the undistributed disbursements for DISA.\n When actions in the plan of action and milestones are completed, DISA will\n have accurate, supportable undistributed disbursement and collection\n information. As of September 30, 2000, the net undistributed disbursements\n that related to the FY 1995 and FY 1996 cross-disbursements for active subhead\n 5F33 were $31.3 million. The team is scheduled to complete its work by\n September 2001.\n\n\nReasons for Delay in Resolving Undistributed Disbursements\n The lack of supporting documentation for the $190.8 million in unsupported\n disbursements was the primary cause of delay in resolving the undistributed\n disbursements. Also, a concern about increasing the reimbursable rate\n contributed to the continued reporting of a significant amount of undistributed\n disbursements in the DISA-DECC financial statements.\n\n\n 5\n\x0c Undistributed Disbursements from Three Inactive Subheads. Net\n undistributed disbursements of $159.5 million were related to the three inactive\n subheads\xe2\x80\x945F30, 5F31, and 5F32. Data from those subheads should have been\n closed out at the end of FY 1995 and transferred to the new subhead, 5F33,\n which is maintained by DFAS Pensacola. To properly close out and transfer the\n residual balances to subhead 5F33, DFAS Arlington and DISA would have to\n resolve the $159.5 million in undistributed disbursements. However, clearing\n the net undistributed disbursements is remote because the vouchers could not be\n located to prove that the disbursements were correctly charged to DISA funds.\n\n In December 1998, DFAS Cleveland recommended that the questionable\n undistributed net disbursements of $159.5 million be closed to equity at the\n activity level after a prior period adjustment was recorded. We believe that\n expenses for these net undistributed disbursements were probably never\n recorded as expenses for DISA-DECC because an aging of the accounts payable\n in September 2000 showed that only $38.4 million of accounts payable were\n more than 90 days old. DISA did not approve the recommendation because it\n did not want to take a loss to resolve the undistributed disbursements without\n supporting documentation to show that the disbursements were correctly made\n from DISA Working Capital Funds. As of December 2000, DISA and\n DFAS Arlington were not able to agree on how to resolve the $159.5 million in\n net undistributed disbursements from the three inactive subheads.\n\n Undistributed Disbursements from Active Subhead 5F33. The $31.3 million\n in undistributed cross-disbursements was the residual of the $294 million in\n undistributed disbursement related to DISA active subhead 5F33 from FY 1995\n and FY 1996. DFAS Arlington did not want to take action to resolve the\n undistributed problem because DFAS Arlington was concerned that the effort in\n locating the vouchers for the remaining $31.3 million was not complete.\n According to DFAS Cleveland accounting personnel, most of the questionable\n disbursements related to the $31.3 million were disbursed at DFAS Columbus\n during FY 1995 and FY 1996. However, DFAS Columbus was not able to\n assist in locating the missing vouchers. As of December 2000, DFAS Arlington\n had not resolved the $31.3 million in undistributed disbursements because of a\n lack of supporting documentation.\n\n\nReview of Account Balances for DoD-Wide Working Capital\n Funds\n Subsequent to issuance of the draft report, the Under Secretary of Defense\n (Comptroller) and DFAS began a joint initiative to review DoD-wide working\n capital fund account balances. On February 5, 2001, DFAS awarded a contract\n to an accounting firm to reconcile, validate, and document the significant\n accounting transactions that occurred within and or between working capital\n fund entities within DoD and other DoD appropriations. The DoD-wide effort\n is intended to resolve the longstanding problems with the accuracy of the Fund\n Balance With Treasury for Defense working capital funds. Personnel in the\n DoD Revolving Funds Directorate in the Office of the Under Secretary of\n\n 6\n\x0c Defense (Comptroller) stated that undistributed problems related to DISA will\n be incorporated in the ongoing DoD-wide effort. At the completion of the\n review, any errors and account imbalances will be identified and the correcting\n entries will be apportioned and recorded. In addition, DISA and DFAS are in\n the process reviewing the transaction data, which is resident in the legacy\n system to identify and clear the aged undistributed problems.\n\n\nConclusion\n DFAS Arlington, DFAS Cleveland, and DFAS Pensacola have taken actions to\n reduce the undistributed disbursements for DISA-DECC for prior years.\n However, as of December 2000, about $190.8 million of the $453.5 million in\n undistributed disbursements still remained. We support the current joint\n initiative of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and DFAS to review\n Defense Working Capital Fund account balances, but do not believe the\n supporting documentation for the net undistributed disbursements of\n $159.5 million for the three inactive subheads can be located. DISA and DFAS\n must resolve the $159.5 million in undistributed disbursements with direction\n and assistance of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller). We would also\n support efforts by the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to allocate\n undistributed disbursements for prior years among Defense Working Capital\n Fund entities in a equitable manner after exhaustive research has failed to obtain\n supporting documentation to match the disbursements to specific transactions.\n The remaining $31.3 million from net undistributed disbursements in the active\n subhead (5F33) maintained by DFAS Pensacola pertaining to disbursements\n made by DFAS Columbus have not been located, and actions to obtain those\n vouchers have not been successful. The DISA financial statements will continue\n to be unreliable until the net undistributed disbursements is resolved.\n\n\nManagement Comments on the Finding\n DISA Comments. DISA took issue with the statement that the FY 2000 DISA\n financial statements \xe2\x80\x9ccould not be relied on to be a complete and accurate\n presentation of financial reporting.\xe2\x80\x9d DISA stated that the information\n supporting the FY 2000 activity is accurate and reliable. Only when the\n residual data from the legacy accounting applications are added do the accounts\n payable reflect an abnormal account balance. See the Management Comments\n section for the complete text of the DISA comments.\n\n Audit Response. We did not review accounting activity for FY 2000\n transactions and do not comment on the accuracy and reliability of FY 2000\n transactions. However, the balance sheet reflects cumulative information, and\n the undistributed disbursements remaining on DISA accounting records from\n prior years affected the FY 2000 financial statements. Closing the undistributed\n disbursements to accounts payable for DISA-DECC created an abnormal\n balance in accounts payable, which indicates that liabilities for the undistributed\n\n 7\n\x0c disbursements were probably not recorded. When undistributed disbursements\n exceed accounts payable, the financial statements are unreliable because it has\n not been determined whether the disbursements correctly belong to the\n organization. DISA appears to be aware of this concept because in the response\n to Recommendation 1. of the draft report, DISA stated that it recognizes that the\n undistributed disbursements must be resolved before DISA can achieve its goal\n of an unqualified audit opinion.\n\n\nRecommendations, Management Comments, and Audit\nResponse\n Revised and Redirected Recommendation. Based on the recent DoD financial\n management initiative and comments on the draft report from DISA and DFAS,\n we revised and redirected Recommendation 1. to the Under Secretary of\n Defense (Comptroller). Recommendation 1., originally made to DISA,\n recommended that DISA obtain a waiver from the Under Secretary of Defense\n (Comptroller) to write off the net undistributed disbursements from the three\n inactive subheads through non-Recoverable Accumulated Operating Results.\n\n DISA Comments. DISA nonconcurred with the recommendation because it\n believes that its expenses and liabilities were properly recorded. DISA also\n stated that the undistributed disbursement problems occurred because DISA was\n not able to access the legacy applications to take appropriate corrective actions\n that would match the disbursements to the correct account payable. Had this\n access been available, the value of unmatched disbursements would have been\n negligible. DISA is unwilling to enter the unmatched disbursements as an\n expense because it believes that the correct expenses were already recorded.\n\n Audit Response. Subsequent discussions with DISA, DFAS, and the Under\n Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), along with additional audit work,\n determined that DISA will have to be charged with the net undistributed\n disbursements that cannot be allocated to other organizations or matched against\n existing accounts payable. We support the current joint initiative by the Under\n Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and DFAS requesting a contractor to\n reconcile, validate, and document various accounting transactions for all DoD\n working capital funds. This initiative will also include a review of undistributed\n disbursements.\n\n DFAS Comments. DFAS stated that DFAS Arlington formed a team of\n personnel from DFAS Indianapolis, DFAS Cleveland, DFAS Pensacola, and\n DISA. That team developed a plan of action and milestones that would resolve\n the undistributed disbursements for DISA by September 2001.\n\n Audit Response. The plan of action and milestones mentioned by DFAS may\n have a limited chance to resolve the undistributed disbursements for the active\n subhead 5F33. However, the chance to resolve the undistributed disbursements\n for inactive subheads 5F30, 5F31, and 5F32 is unlikely because, as stated\n earlier, DFAS personnel had concluded that disbursement vouchers for the\n\n 8\n\x0cquestionable amounts were not available and DFAS had postponed further\nresearch for those vouchers. Therefore, we have revised Recommendation 1 in\nthe draft report and redirected it to the Under Secretary of Defense\n(Comptroller). At the conclusion of the DoD-wide review of account balances\nof working capital funds, to include undistributed disbursements, the Under\nSecretary of Defense (Comptroller) will have to allocate any remaining\nundistributed (unmatched) disbursements from prior years among the various\nDefense working capital funds as prior period adjustments.\n\n1. We recommend that the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller):\n\n a. Include a review of the undistributed disbursements for the\ninactive subheads 5F30, 5F31, and 5F32 once used for the Defense\nInformation Systems Agency Working Capital Fund, and the undistributed\ndisbursements for the active subhead 5F33 currently used by the Defense\nInformation Systems Agency Working Capital Fund in the ongoing\nDoD-wide effort to review cash balances for working capital funds within\nDoD.\n\n b. Direct the Defense Information Systems Agency and the Defense\nFinance and Accounting Service to record a prior period adjustment for any\nremaining undistributed disbursements for the Defense Information Systems\nAgency Working Capital Fund that cannot be charged against accounts\npayable or allocated to other organizations based on the results of the\nDoD-wide review.\n\n2. We recommend that the Director, Defense Finance and Accounting\nService, direct Defense Finance and Accounting Service Columbus to assist\nDefense Finance and Accounting Service Cleveland and Defense Finance\nand Accounting Service Pensacola to locate the missing vouchers relating to\nthe $31.3 million from subhead 5F33.\n\nDFAS Comments. DFAS concurred and stated that DFAS Columbus is in the\nprocess of researching the request to provide appropriate documentation. DFAS\nexpects actions to be completed by September 30, 2001.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0cAppendix A. Audit Process\n\nScope\n We reviewed the procedures and controls used by DFAS Cleveland and\n DFAS Pensacola to prepare financial information for DISA-DECC business\n area. Specifically, we reviewed the undistributed disbursements reported for\n DISA-DECC since 1997. We reviewed DFAS Pensacola reconciliation\n procedures and initiatives made by DFAS Cleveland, DFAS Pensacola, and\n DFAS Arlington to resolve the undistributed disbursements for DISA-DECC\n business area. Also, we reviewed the procedures used by DISA-DECC business\n area to record commitments, obligations, and accruals.\n\n DoD-Wide Corporate-Level Government Performance and Results Act\n Coverage. In response to the Act, the Secretary of Defense annually establishes\n DoD-wide corporate-level goals, subordinate performance goals, and\n performance measures. This report pertains to achievement of the following\n objectives and goals, and performance measures.\n\n FY 2001 DoD Corporate-Level Goal 2: Prepare now for an uncertain\n future by pursuing a focused modernization effort that maintains U.S.\n qualitative superiority in key warfighting capabilities. Transform the\n force by exploiting the Revolution in Military Affairs, and reengineer the\n Department to achieve a 21st century infrastructure. (01-DoD-02)\n\n FY 2001 Subordinate Performance Goal 2.5: Improve DoD financial\n and information management. (01-DoD-2.5)\n\n FY 2001 Performance Measure 2.5.2: Achieve unqualified opinions\n \xe2\x88\x92DoD-2.5.2.).\n on financial statements. (01\xe2\x88\x92\n\n DoD Functional Area Reform Goals. Most major DoD functional areas have\n also established performance improvement reform objectives and goals. This\n report pertains to achievement of the following functional area objective and\n goal.\n\n Financial Management Area. Objective: Strengthen internal controls.\n Goal: Improve compliance with the Federal Managers\xe2\x80\x99 Financial\n Integrity Act. (FM-5.3)\n\n General Accounting Office High Risk Area. The General Accounting Office\n has identified several high risk areas in the DoD. This report provides coverage\n of the Defense Financial Management high risk area.\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0cMethodology\n We reviewed applicable laws, policies, procedures, and regulations related to\n the undistributed disbursements, the recording of liabilities, and the journal\n vouchers related to the $200 million in cash overdraft, along with the\n $294 million in undistributed disbursements for DISA-active subhead 5F33. We\n judgmentally selected and reviewed $53 million of the $137 million in\n nonpayroll vouchers from disbursements that occurred in FY 1995 and\n FY 1996. We did not review the $114 million in payroll vouchers because\n DFAS Pensacola already processed the payroll data in the Central Expenditure\n Reimbursement Processing System. We reviewed the DFAS Cleveland and\n DFAS Pensacola accounting records, and held discussions with DFAS\n Arlington, DFAS Cleveland, DFAS Pensacola, and DISA accounting personnel\n responsible for compiling, reviewing, and correcting financial information\n reported in the DISA consolidated financial statements.\n\n Use of Computer-Processed Data. We relied on computer-processed data\n from the Industrial Fund Accounting System and the Central Data Base to\n conduct the audit at DFAS Cleveland and DFAS Pensacola. We relied on\n computer-processed data without performing tests of the system general and\n application controls because the process for reconciling and preparing journal\n vouchers is primarily a manual process. Not evaluating the controls did not\n affect the results of the audit.\n\n Audit Type, Date, and Standards. We performed this financial-related audit\n from July 2000 through January 2001 in accordance with the auditing standards\n issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, as implemented by the\n Inspector General, DoD. We included tests of management controls considered\n necessary.\n\n Contacts During the Audit. We visited and contacted individuals and\n organizations in DoD. Further details are available on request.\n\nManagement Control Program Review\n DoD Directive 5010.38, \xe2\x80\x9cManagement Control (MC) Program,\xe2\x80\x9d August 26,\n 1996, requires DoD organizations to implement a comprehensive system of\n management controls that provides reasonable assurance that programs are\n operating as intended and to evaluate the adequacy of the controls.\n\n Scope of the Review of the Management Control Program. We reviewed the\n adequacy of the DFAS Cleveland and DFAS Pensacola management controls\n over preparing and reporting financial information for DISA-DECC.\n Specifically, we reviewed the cash reconciliation process for the Industrial Fund\n Accounting System performed by DFAS Pensacola.\n\n Adequacy of Management Controls. Although material weaknesses in\n reconciling undistributed disbursements occurred in the past, we did not identify\n\n 11\n\x0c any material control weaknesses with the DFAS Cleveland and DFAS Pensacola\n procedures in reconciling current undistributed disbursements for DISA-DECC.\n The accounting procedures relating to the cash reconciliation performed at\n DFAS Pensacola would reduce the risk of building up the undistributed\n disbursements.\n\n Adequacy of Management\xe2\x80\x99s Self-Evaluation. Managers at DFAS Cleveland\n and DFAS Pensacola identified the DISA accounting and DISA cash\n reconciliation process performed by the accounting divisions at both centers as\n assessable units. Also, DFAS Cleveland FY 1999 Annual Statement of\n Assurance reported the control of problem disbursements as one of its material\n control weaknesses.\n\nPrior Coverage\n The General Accounting Office and the Inspector General, DoD, have\n conducted multiple reviews related to the undistributed disbursements. General\n Accounting Office reports can be accessed on the Internet at\n http://www.gao.gov. Inspector General, DoD, reports can be accessed on the\n Internet at http//www.dodig.mil/audit/reports.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0cAppendix B. Hotline Allegations and Audit\n Results\n The allegations and audit results as discussed in the audit report are summarized\n below.\n\n Allegation 1. DFAS Cleveland recorded for FY 1998 a cash overdraft of\n $200 million as positive equity rather than a cash overdraft.\n\n Audit Results. The complainant stated that the problem was corrected in late\n FY 1999 by DFAS Cleveland. We confirmed that the correction was made.\n\n Allegation 2. More than $400 million in cross-disbursements could not be\n matched to liabilities, indicating that a substantial amount of expenses may\n not have been recorded.\n\n Audit Results. The allegation was partially substantiated. However, we could\n not find any evidence that expenses were not recorded. Review of $53 million\n of the $137 million in cross-disbursement vouchers made during FY 1995 and\n FY 1996 showed that expenses were recorded and liabilities were established for\n the disbursements. Also, our review showed that $294 million in undistributed\n disbursements related to DISA active subhead 5F33 occurred because detailed\n disbursement transactions made by other disbursing stations were not sent to\n DFAS Cleveland and DFAS Pensacola for processing. Beginning in FY 1999,\n DFAS Cleveland and DFAS Pensacola aggressively researched and resolved\n $251 million of the $294 million in undistributed disbursements that should have\n been accounted for by DFAS Pensacola. However, supporting documentation\n for the undistributed disbursements relating to the inactive subheads for\n $159.5 million were not located. We believe that expenses for these\n disbursements were probably never accrued in the DISA accounting records\n because an aging of accounts payable in September 2000 showed that only about\n $38.4 million of accounts payable were more than 90 days old. Without\n supporting documentation, no possibility exists to determine if these\n disbursements should be charged to DISA operations. The finding discusses the\n actions DFAS Arlington and DISA should take to resolve the remaining\n undistributed disbursements of $159.5 million related to the inactive subheads\n and $31.3 million related to the active subhead.\n\n Allegation 3. DISA and DFAS have been slow to resolve the undistributed\n disbursements so that DISA and DFAS Pensacola could manipulate the\n DISA financial statements, thereby making DISA operating results and\n reimbursable rates appear more favorable.\n\n Audit Results. The allegation was partially substantiated because the\n undistributed disbursements became evident during FY 1997, but DFAS\n Cleveland and DFAS Pensacola did not take aggressive corrective actions until\n FY 1999. However, at the time of our audit, both DFAS Cleveland and DFAS\n Pensacola had aggressively pursued the problem. We could not find any\n\n 13\n\x0cevidence that DFAS Cleveland and DFAS Pensacola were trying to manipulate\nthe financial statements. As stated in the finding, DFAS Cleveland and DFAS\nArlington had aggressively researched and resolved the undistributed\ndisbursement problems. However, DFAS Arlington and DFAS Cleveland were\nunable to locate vouchers to prove that the disbursements belonged to DISA,\nand DISA did not want to record the disbursements against the DISA fund\nwithout supporting documentation that showed the disbursements were\nlegitimate. Also, DFAS Cleveland was unable to obtain assistance from DFAS\nColumbus in locating the missing vouchers for $31.3 million related to the\nactive subhead.\n\nAllegations 4. DFAS Cleveland took unjustified personnel actions to\nprevent accounting personnel assigned to DISA from resolving the\nundistributed disbursements of the DISA.\nAudit Results. We did not perform audit work on this allegation because the\nU.S. Office of Special Counsel found the allegation had no merit and made a\npreliminary determination to close the investigation.\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0cAppendix C. Report Distribution\n\nOffice of the Secretary of Defense\nUnder Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)\n Deputy Chief Financial Officer\n Deputy Comptroller (Program/Budget)\n\nDepartment of the Army\nAuditor General, Department of the Army\n\nDepartment of the Navy\nAuditor General, Department of the Navy\n\nDepartment of the Air Force\nAuditor General, Department of the Air Force\n\nOther Defense Organizations\nDirector, Defense Finance and Accounting Service\n Director, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Cleveland\n Director, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Pensacola\nDirector, Defense Information Systems Agency\n\nNon-Defense Federal Organization\nOffice of Management and Budget\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0cCongressional Committees and Subcommittees, Chairman and\n Ranking Minority Member\nSenate Committee on Appropriations\nSenate Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations\nSenate Committee on Armed Services\nSenate Committee on Governmental Affairs\nHouse Committee on Appropriations\nHouse Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations\nHouse Committee on Armed Services\nHouse Committee on Government Reform\nHouse Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management, and\n Intergovernmental Relations, Committee on Government Reform\nHouse Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International\n Relations, Committee on Government Reform\nHouse Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy, Committee on\n Government Reform\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0cDefense Finance and Accounting Service\nComments\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c'


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 11.3.2010
 BG
 Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
 L 62/56
 РЕШЕНИЕ НА СЪВМЕСТНИЯ КОМИТЕТ НА ЕИП
 No 153/2009
 от 4 декември 2009 година
 за изменение на приложение XXI (Статистика) и на протокол 30 относно специфичните разпоредби за организацията на сътрудничеството в областта на статистиката към Споразумението за ЕИП
 СЪВМЕСТНИЯТ КОМИТЕТ НА ЕИП,
 като взе предвид Споразумението за Европейското икономическо пространство, изменено с Протокола за адаптиране на Споразумението за Европейското икономическо пространство, наричано по-нататък „Споразумението“, и по-специално член 98 от него,
 като има предвид, че:
 (1)
 Приложение XXI към Споразумението бе изменено с Решение No 113/2009 на Съвместния комитет на ЕИП от 22 октомври 2009 г. (1)
 (2)
 Протокол 30 към Споразумението бе изменен с Решение No 90/2009 на Съвместния комитет на ЕИП от 3 юли 2009 г. (2)
 (3)
 Регламент (ЕО) No 223/2009 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета от 11 март 2009 година относно европейската статистика и за отмяна на Регламент (ЕО, Евратом) No 1101/2008 за предоставянето на поверителна статистическа информация на Статистическата служба на Европейските общности, на Регламент (ЕО) No 322/97 на Съвета относно статистиката на Общността и на Решение 89/382/ЕИО, Евратом на Съвета за създаване на Статистически програмен комитет на Европейските общности (3), трябва да бъде включен в Споразумението,
 (4)
 Регламент (ЕО) No 223/2009 отменя Регламент (ЕО, Евратом) No 1101/2008 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета (4) и Регламент (ЕО) No 322/97 на Съвета (5), които са включени в Споразумението и които съответно трябва да бъдат отменени по силата на Споразумението.
 (5)
 Всички позовавания на Статистическия програмен комитет (СПК) от Протокол 30 към Споразумението трябва да бъдат заменени с позоваване на Комитета на Европейската статистическа система (КЕСС),
 РЕШИ:
 Член 1
 Приложение XXI към Споразумението се изменя, както следва:
 1.
 Текстът от точка 17 (Регламент (ЕО, Евратом) No 1101/2008 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета) се заменя със следното:
 „32009 R 0223: Регламент (ЕО) No 223/2009 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета от 11 март 2009 година относно европейската статистика и за отмяна на Регламент (ЕО, Евратом) No 1101/2008 за предоставянето на поверителна статистическа информация на Статистическата служба на Европейските общности, на Регламент (ЕО) No 322/97 на Съвета относно статистиката на Общността и на Решение 89/382/ЕИО, Евратом на Съвета за създаване на Статистически програмен комитет на Европейските общности (ОВ L 87, 31.3.2009 г., стр. 164).“
 2.
 Текстът на точка 17а (Регламент (ЕО) No 322/97 на Съвета) се заличава.
 Член 2
 Протокол 30 към Споразумението се изменя, както следва:
 1.
 Текстът от член 1, параграф 6 се заменя със следното:
 „Управлението на статистиката от държавите от ЕАСТ се ръководи от Регламент (ЕО) No 223/2009 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета от 11 март 2009 г. относно европейската статистика (ОВ L 87, 31.3.2009 г., стр. 164).“
 2.
 Думите „Статистически програмен комитет (СПК)“ от член 1, параграф 1 се заменят с думите „Комитет на Европейската статистическа система (КЕСС)“.
 3.
 Думите „СПК/ЕИП“ от член 1, параграфи 1 и 7 се заменят с думите „КЕСС/ЕИП“.
 Член 3
 Текстовете на Регламент (ЕО) No 223/2009 на исландски и норвежки език, които предстои да бъдат публикувани в притурката за ЕИП към Официален вестник на Европейския съюз, са автентични.
 Член 4
 Настоящото решение влиза в сила на 5 декември 2009 г., при условие че всички нотификации, предвидени в член 103, параграф 1 от Споразумението, са внесени в Съвместния комитет на ЕИП (6).
 Член 5
 Настоящото решение се публикува в раздела за ЕИП и в притурката за ЕИП към Официален вестник на Европейския съюз.
 Съставено в Брюксел на 4 декември 2009 година.
 За Съвместния комитет на ЕИП
 Председател
 Oda Helen SLETNES
 (1) ОВ L 334, 17.12.2009 г., стр. 15.
 (2) ОВ L 277, 22.10.2009 г., стр. 43.
 (3) ОВ L 87, 31.3.2009 г., стр. 164.
 (4) ОВ L 304, 14.11.2008 г., стр. 70.
 (5) ОВ L 52, 22.2.1997 г., стр. 1.
 (6) Без отбелязани конституционни изисквания.


type: caselaw

text:
C 348/20 SV Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning 8.12.2001
 Talan mot Republiken Italien väckt den 17 oktober 2001 allmänna principen om insyn, då den gör det möjligt att
 av Europeiska gemenskapernas kommission indela de objektiva kriterierna för bedömning av anbuden i
 undergrupper innan anbuden öppnas. Kommissionen anser
 slutligen att Republiken Italien dessutom har åsidosatt arti-
 (Mål C-412/01) kel 44.2 i direktivet genom att underlåta att underrätta
 kommissionen om att presidentdekret nr 116/97 har antagits.
 (2001/C 348/35)
 (1) EGT L 209 av den 24 juli 1992, s. 1.
 Europeiska gemenskapernas kommission har den 17 oktober
 2001 väckt talan vid Europeiska gemenskapernas domstol
 mot Republiken Italien. Sökanden företräds av Michel Nolin, i
 egenskap av ombud, biträdd av Massimo Moretto, avvocato.
 Talan mot Konungariket Spanien väckt den 17 oktober
 2001 av Europeiska gemenskapernas kommission
 Sökanden yrkar att domstolen skall (Mål C-414/01)
 — fastställa att Republiken Italien har åsidosatt sina skyldig- (2001/C 348/36)
 heter enligt direktiv 92/50/EEG och särskilt enligt artiklar-
 na 23, 32, 36 och 44 i detta direktiv genom att i artikel 2
 i presidentdekret nr 116 av den 27 februari 1997, genom
 hänvisning till artikel 14 i lagdekret nr 157 av den Europeiska gemenskapernas kommission har den 17 oktober
 17 mars 1995, bland kriterierna för tilldelning av kon- 2001 väckt talan vid Europeiska gemenskapernas domstol
 trakt ange att de upphandlande myndigheterna vid fast- mot Konungariket Spanien. Sökanden företräds av I. Martı́nez
 ställandet av det ekonomiskt mest fördelaktiga anbudet del Peral, i egenskap av ombud, delgivningsadress: rättstjänsten,
 kan beakta de urvalskriterier som anges i artikel 32 i L. Escobar, Centre Wagner, C 254, Luxemburg.
 direktiv 92/50/EEG (1) och bland kriterierna för tilldelning
 av kontrakt även ange intygande av kvalitet och ”andra
 faktorer som eventuellt anges av de upphandlande myn-
 Sökanden yrkar att domstolen skall
 digheterna i syfte att särskilt kvalificera anbudsgivarna
 vad gäller den tjänst som upphandlingen avser”, samt
 även genom att föreskriva om en möjlighet att indela — fastställa att Konungariket Spanien har underlåtit att
 kriterierna för bedömning av anbuden i undergrupper uppfylla sina skyldigheter enligt artikel 15.1 i Europapar-
 innan anbuden öppnas och genom att underlåta att lamentets och rådets direktiv 97/7/EG av den 20 maj
 tillställa kommissionen dekrettexten till presidentdekret 1997 om konsumentskydd vid distansavtal (1) genom
 nr 116/97, och att inte anta de lagar och andra författningar som är
 nödvändiga för att följa nämnda direktiv, eller under alla
 omständigheter genom att inte underrätta kommissionen
 — förordna att Republiken Italien skall ersätta rättegångs- om att dessa bestämmelser har antagits,
 kostnaderna.
 — förplikta Konungariket Spanien att ersätta rättegångskost-
 naderna.
 Grunder och huvudargument
 Grunder och huvudargument
 Kommissionen anser att de ifrågasatta bestämmelserna i I enlighet med artikel 15.1 i direktiv 97/7/EG skulle Konungari-
 presidentdekret nr 116/97 uppenbart strider mot direktiv ket Spanien anta de bestämmelser som är nödvändiga för att
 92/50, såtillvida att det i dessa bestämmelser föreskrivs följa detta direktiv senast den 4 juni 2000.
 att bedömningskriterier avseende anbudsgivarnas tekniska
 kapacitet skall tillämpas även i den fas då bedömningen av
 det ekonomiskt mest förmånliga anbudet sker, varigenom (1) EGT L 144, 1997, s. 19.
 urvalsfasen sammanblandas med den fas då kontraktet tilldelas.
 Kommissionen anser även att presidentdekretets ordalydelse
 innebär åsidosättande av artikel 36.2 i direktivet samt av den


text:
Kokik és sallerek az ügyészségnek Quaestor-ügyben | Átlátszó blog
 „A pótlólag megküldött elektronikus adatok vizsgálata alapján a törvényszék megállapította, hogy azok gyakorlatilag áttekinthetetlenek, közöttük számos, a törvényszék előtt folyamatban lévő büntetőügyhöz bizonyosan nem kapcsolódó magánjellegű dokumentum, üdvözlet, zenefájl stb. is található”
 Aki (lehet, most túlzunk, vigyázat, de nem nagyon) cicás gifeket és randikérő üzeneteket bizonyítékként tálalt a Fővárosi Törvényszéknek, nem más, mint a Fővárosi Főügyészség, méghozzá nem egy akármilyen tyúkperben.
 A bíróság a magyar gazdaság- és jogtörténet eddigi legnagyobb banki csalása ügyében indult büntetőeljárás, a Tarsoly Csaba és társai ellen csalás és más bűncselekmények miatt indult úgynevezett Quaestor-ügyben született vádiratot szedte ízekre a tárgyalás-előkészítő tanácsülésen április elején.
 Az esetről április elején, a bírósági közleményre reagálva kiadott ügyészségi MTI-reagálás nem kicsit szépített az ügyön: e szerint mintha nem különösebben lényeges, ám technikailag kivitelezhetetlen elvárásokat támasztott volna a bíróság.
 A gond azonban úgy fest, nagyobb a váddal. A törvényszék az Átlátszó birtokába jutott határozatában arra jutott: hatvan napot ad az ügyészségnek a vádirat hiányosságainak pótlására. A határozat indokolásában egyebek mellett olyan megalázó kijelentések szerepelnek, hogy például:
 „...a fenti, milliós nagyságrendű adat kapcsán arra vonatkozó álláspontját, hogy azok közül a vádhatóság mit tekint a vádat alátámasztó bizonyítéknak, sem a vádirat, sem a pótlólagosan megküldött ügyészségi átirat nem tartalmazza még utaló jelleggel sem.”
 A törvényszék végzését átolvasva úgy fest, szinte semmi sincsen rendben a nagy csinnadrattával kezdett büntetőügyben.
 Az Átlátszó főbb cikkei a Quaestor-ügyről és a bankbotrányokról
 Csak a feljelentések 62 ezer (!) oldalt tesznek ki a bíróságra megküldött paksamétában. Csakhogy itt is teljes az összevisszaság: nem derül ki, hogy melyik sértett esete melyik vádpontot alapozta meg.
 A bizonyítékokkal is sok a gondja az Idzigné Novák Csilla vezette büntetőtanácsnak. A vádirat tárgyi bizonyítékként szinte kizárólag nyomozati cselekményekről (házkutatásról, motozásról, lefoglalásról stb.) készült határozatokat és jegyzőkönyveket prezentált, csakhogy a vádiratból nem derül ki, hogy melyik bizonyíték mely cselekmény megtörténtét támasztja alá az ügyészek szerint.
 A törvényszék nehezményezi, hogy az ügyészség egyetlen elektronikus adathordozót sem csatolt a 226 kötetnyi nyomozati irathoz, illetve, hogy – bár arra törvény kötelezi – nem bocsájtotta a bíróság rendelkezésére az aktákat elektronikus formában, még felhívás ellenére sem (ezt az előkészítő ülésen pótolta az ügyész).
 Utólag kaptak ugyan 104 darab CD-t és DVD-t, illetve egy USB merevlemezt, de csak kvázi kölcsönbe: a tárgyalás után az ügyészség visszakéri az adathordozókat. Egyébiránt ezeken található az a milliós nagyságrendű fájl, bennük az oda nem illő tartalmak.
 Az előkészítő ülésen a bíróság kérdésére az ügyész úgy válaszolt: azért nem lehetséges megjelölni, az adattengerből mi számít egyáltalán bizonyítéknak és mit támaszt alá, mert „a terheltek a nyomozás során nem tettek érdemi vallomást”, azt hogy később „a bizonyítékoknak milyen relevanciája lesz, az eljárás során jelölöm majd meg”.
 A bíróság szerint azonban ez az „improvizatív, ad hoc” hozzáállás sérti az Emberi Jogok Európai Egyezményében és a magyar alaptörvényben rögzített tisztességes eljáráshoz való jogot. Mivel a terheltek és a védők nem tudnak felkészülni a védekezésre.
 A bíróság hívta fel az ügyészség figyelmét – holott fordítva kellett volna történnie – hogy 5 procedúrában a nyomozást elkülönítették. Ezek: Magyar Nemzeti Kereskedőház, dán Saxo Bank, Soltvadkert és Vidéke Takarékszövetkezet esetei, az USA-beli Quaestor-cégek ügye, illetve az Orgován Béla ellen folyó büntetőeljárás.
 Erre az ügyész az ülésen úgy reagált: „ezek kimaradtak a vádiratból”.
 A bíróság itt is szigorúbban kér számon: miután az ügyész a „szatelit-ügyekben” érintettek közül többeket tanúként kíván meghallgatni, nem lényegtelen az elkülönített ügyek állása.
 A törvényszék mindezen hiányosságok ellenére törvényesnek mondta a vádat, felhívta ugyanakkor az ügyészséget a hiányok pótlására, így például arra is, hogy jelölje meg, kiket kíván értesíteni a tárgyalásról.