Evidence and limits of the internal check

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

This video's topic is evidence and limits of the internal check. By the end, you should be able to assess individual allegations and recognise mandatory referral. We will connect the information available, the criterion guiding the decision and the action that must be recorded. Follow the case and compare your answer with the proposed response. The private company Horizonte Equipamentos, its 120 employees and all events are fictional. Five episodes follow suspected improper benefit in purchasing. An internal procedural failure is not automatically a crime or a public procurement. Scope and competence are checked throughout.

Records show weighting changed after bids without documented approval. One explanation is technical error, another pressure. The overheard benefit discussion still lacks clear context. A procedural failure alone does not prove bribery. Where indications of a committed offence are established, article 17 requires immediate referral of the report and materials to the prosecution service and ending the internal check on that ground.

Apply the following rule: Article 8 of Regulation No 1 of 27 July 2023 requires reports, attachments and subsequent documentation to be kept for five years after handling closes, subject to the exception for instituted related criminal, civil, employment or administrative proceedings. The starting event is closure, not receipt. Document grounds and review of the exception. Clearly irrelevant personal data must not be collected and, if collected accidentally, must be deleted under article 32(2). The register is not public and access is restricted.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Compare lawfully obtained versions, records and explanations. Assess alternatives and the person concerned’s rights. In the fictional development, a relevant message emerges supporting a link between personal benefit and selection. The team follows the competent route immediately rather than continuing its own criminal investigation. Protection and separately permissible control measures remain. Before moving on, turn this procedure into a sequence you could explain to a colleague. Identify the first check, the action that depends on its outcome and the record that allows the decision to be reconstructed. Follow the sequence on screen and identify the point where an error would change the result.

3. Case Study & Compliance Action

The change was established before the new message, while intention remained unproven. New information changes the required action. The team documents what is referred and why without declaring final guilt or destroying preserved records. Now read the case carefully. Separate established facts from information you would still need to confirm. Do not add motives or events that have not been described. This distinction matters when choosing a response proportionate to the information available.

The exercise is as follows: Must the team prove every element of a crime internally before referral? Choose an answer and write one sentence explaining it. During the pause, compare your choice with the criteria we have just considered. Also think about the material you would retain to explain the decision later.

No. Apply the statutory threshold and immediate article 17 route. The internal team does not replace prosecutors or courts. Separate the control weakness already established from criminal responsibility.

One mistake to avoid is: continuing an internal criminal investigation despite mandatory referral.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. The system deletes every case five years after receipt, regardless of the country and any pending proceedings. Is that appropriate?

No. Identify the local rule, starting event and any limits or extensions. A uniform schedule may delete records too early or retain them too long. Document the decision by category, include copies and define who reviews a suspension of deletion, rather than keeping everything indefinitely.