86
ALRAQABA . ISSUE 16
in light of the obstacles previously mentioned in
resorting to legal department members of the
entities. The required capacity to operate an
entity such as an administrative prosecution is
different than the required to operate a vocational
institute to train legal personnel, particularly with
regard to the extent of possibilities. Operating an
institute requires fewer staff members than in an
administrative prosecution. Subsequently, it is
possible to select those with the most efficient
capabilities based on the assessment of all
relevant entities. It is also possible to outsource
specialists to train national staff members until
they are able to carry out the training missions
themselves.
As for the legislative reforms, the primary
purpose is to encounter the conditions of which
entities refrain from conducting an inquiry on
financial irregularities. These reforms are directed
towards the carrot-and-stick approach through
the amendment of SAB Establishment Law and
introducing an article that incriminates any entity
that refuses to conduct an administrative inquiry
on financial violations. These entities would
face criminal sanctions if held accountable for
the crime. The sanction may not be a prison;
it could be a fine. Yet it is important to set up
a consequent sanction post imposing the fine,
which is in the form of dismissal from service. It
can be noted that these legislative reforms would
encourage all experts within the entity to conduct
an administrative inquiry on a financial violation
to avoid being dismissed from service.
It might be considered that this approach may
negatively impact the workstream in the entity
subject to control. Filing complaints on these
crimes by SAB may trigger the fear of specialists
from performing their duties, particularly in light
of their weak technical capacity to do so.
Yet, it is possible to avoid this by introducing
reforms progressively. In the beginning,
administrative reforms may take place to
provide efficient technical staff to carry out
an administrative inquiry in financial violations
to avoid any irregularities excused by the
entity. Therefore, their refrain from conducting
an inquiry becomes the result of the entity’s
arbitrary actions. Post entry of administrative
reforms, it is feasible to resort to criminalization.
Additionally, it is possible to regulate the process
of criminalizing an entity for abstaining from
conducting an administrative inquiry on financial
irregularities by setting up a deadline that
confirms the occurrence of abstention, such as
the passing of 180 days of the date of requesting
the inquiry, and the failure of the entity to take the
necessary actions. Also, taking into consideration
the conditions surrounding the occurrence or
any other circumstances that face the entity that
hinder it from carrying out the inquiry. Such as if
the violator or any of the experts were on extended
sick leave or accompanying an ill relative abroad
for treatment. These circumstances must be
validated, and their seriousness and impact on
conducting an administrative inquiry during the
specified deadline must be assessed. If these
circumstances were validated and if the entity
has refrained from conducting the investigation
during this time, SAB shall not report this crime to
the relevant authorities. Yet, in case SAB did not
validate these conditions and report the offense
despite its seriousness, the designated authority
is to conduct an investigation and is allowed to
dismiss the report.
We believe that embracing these legislative and
administrative reforms shall develop the technical
level of the staff members within the auditees in
the long term. It will prevent these entities from
abstaining from conducting an administrative
inquiry on financial irregularities.
