Module Learning Objective

apply conflict assessment in different situations

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

In this video we will consolidate a skill: apply conflict assessment in different situations. Use the case to test what you would do in a similar situation. We will explain the proposed response step by step so that you can understand each choice and recognise when more information would be needed. Conflicts can exist without proven corruption. Distinguish public-official restrictions from private policy. We use the law in force on 1 October 2026. Gifts have different categories and conditions; one amount is not universal permission.

Identical principles can produce different outcomes by role and rule. Assess kinship, ownership and other influence precisely. The law includes specified beneficial-owner connections. Every acquaintance is not automatically the same legal category.

Apply the following rule: Reports can go to competent authorities or through the contact point and specified organisations. Since 1 March 2026 KNAB is the contact point. It advises, refers, supervises compliance and examines cases where no competent institution can be determined. It does not replace every sector authority’s powers. Internal reporting is encouraged only under section 5(4); public disclosure has separate section 4 conditions.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Assess relationship, powers and rule in each example. Record gaps and independent checks. Describe lawful withdrawal or proportionate action without excessive family data. Label stricter policy as policy. 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

Cases concern evaluating a relative’s company, a supplier invitation and a benefit for a connected company. Each response is justified separately. 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: May every relationship be treated as one automatic legal prohibition? 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.

Not accurately. Check categories and facts. Stricter policy may exist but is not the exact statutory text.

One mistake to avoid is: equating different connections without checking the rule.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. The team treats KNAB as the only investigator for every sector. What needs clarification?

KNAB has performed contact-point functions since March 2026, but the competent institution examines the particular breach. The contact point helps identify it and also examines statutory cases where competence cannot be determined. Check the current official route. A private software provider does not become a competent public authority.

National Legal Framework: Trauksmes celšanas likums, transposing Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law.