Supplier assessment and warning signs

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

Today we will learn to organise third-party assessment proportionate to risk. Throughout the video, consider the difference between knowing a rule and applying it to a decision. We will work through an example, identify a possible failure and develop a response that can be used at work. Examples address preventive purchasing controls. Public procurement and private purchasing have different legal frameworks. For public procurement, consider amendment NN 48/2026: general commencement on 16 May 2026, specified provisions on 1 September and the transitional rule for procedures already started.

An unclear service, unexplained fee or unrelated payment recipient may require further checks. A warning sign is not proof of crime. Public procurement has defined exclusion grounds and evidential rules, including 2026 changes. An internal risk indicator does not justify inventing an arbitrary legal exclusion ground.

Apply the following rule: The employer adopts and makes accessible a general act on internal reporting and appointment of the confidential person and deputy. The employer must not interfere with their statutory handling to protect the reporting person. An unauthorised recipient must forward the report without delay and without alteration to the confidential person, protecting its data. Articles 17 and 18 regulate oral reports and requested meetings, including recording consent and the opportunity to check records. Portuguese RGPC is not Croatian legislation.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Set assessment levels by risk, value, activity and context. Use reliable sources and verify name matches before concluding. Record gaps and approval conditions. Consider changes throughout the relationship. Avoid indiscriminate personal-data collection and automatic exclusion based on unconfirmed news. 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

An intermediary requests a large payment, cannot explain the service and asks for transfer to another entity's account. The team pauses to clarify role, remuneration and recipient. It treats the warning sign as a reason for diligence and a justified decision. 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: What is the initial response to a material warning sign that remains unexplained? 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.

Obtain further information and assess risk before proceeding under the procedure. Explain approval, conditions or refusal. Neither ignore the warning nor automatically declare a crime.

One mistake to avoid is: replacing assessment with superficial searching or personal trust in the supplier.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. The team presents every integrity instrument as mandatory in every country. How should the message be revised?

Distinguish what national law actually requires, the conditions for its application to the entity and the proposed good practices. The specific rule just examined must appear in the corresponding procedure. Each duty needs a source; each management choice needs a purpose, an owner and evidence of implementation.