![]() ![]() Therefore, in addition to requiring two signatures, the organisation could ensure that the second signature is from a different department or function. appoint a sub-contractor), and approve work or services to be carried out under that transaction. In relation to more than low corruption risk transactions, persons from the same department or function should not be able to both initiate a transaction (e.g. Where appropriate, there should be a separation of duties between approvers.While it is possible that the first manager may lie about the transaction and falsify the documentation, it makes it more difficult than if the manager could approve the appointment or work without a second signatory. For example, if a manager of the organisation wishes to appoint a friend, or an organisation owned by the manager, as a supplier, then the risk of this occurring is reduced if a second manager’s countersignature based on appropriate checks as to suitability of supplier and validity of supporting documentation is always required for such appointments. Such approval should be given only after appropriate checks and enquiries have been made. The organisation may determine that small low risk transactions do not need a second approval. ![]() In the case of high corruption risk transactions, the approval of the Board could be required. Transactions which carry a more than low corruption should require the approval of more than one appropriate manager.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |