Preventive measures and owners

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

This video focuses on how to choose measures addressing the causes of risk. Follow the sequence of decisions in the example rather than simply memorising a list. Notice who is involved, what information is needed and the expected result. These points help turn the content into a practice that another person can verify. The Plan for the Prevention of Corruption and Related Offences, abbreviated as PPR, must reflect the entity's actual activities. The scales and examples are teaching choices, not legally imposed matrices. The aim is to connect processes, risks, measures and owners in a verifiable way.

An effective measure addresses how risk can occur. It may prevent, detect or correct. Separation of duties, independent approval, third-party checks and decision records serve different functions. Training helps but does not always replace process controls. Under the RGPC, high or maximum risks require more thorough preventive measures and priority implementation.

National rule: For high or maximum risks, the RGPC provides for more extensive preventive measures and priority implementation. The selected measures should address the specific way in which corruption or a related offence could occur.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Link each measure to its intended cause. Define performer, owner, frequency, evidence and implementation date. Assess feasibility and resources. In small teams, seek suitable compensating controls rather than impossible separation. Identify who monitors overall PPR implementation. 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

For bank-detail changes, the entity requires independent confirmation through a previously verified contact and a second approval. This addresses improper changes. A generic reminder to be careful did not offer equivalent prevention and verification. 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 distinguishes ‘pay more attention’ from documented independent confirmation? 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.

The second specifies an observable action, a point in the process and evidence. The first is difficult to test. A sound measure shows who performed it, for which transaction and with what result.

One mistake to avoid is: assigning vague or unfunded measures to people unable to implement them.

Which document, responsible person and evidence from your entity demonstrate application of this rule?

Confirm the scope and applicable source. Record the decision, who can approve it and the evidence required. Application in this lesson should support the following objective: choose measures addressing the causes of risk Distinguish the legal duty from the organisational method chosen by the entity.