Depending on the person complaining of embezzlement of public money and the amount of fraud, Complaints submitted to the competent department of the Ministry of Finance will be evaluated…..
By decision of Th. Skylakaki, the complaints will be more important when they are made by Ministers, compared to the complaints of ordinary citizens!!
This is provided by decision of the Deputy Minister of Finance, Thodorou Skylakaki, with which for example the complaint if it comes from Minister, graded with 10, while the complaint of one ordinary citizen, graded with 1.
The decision determines the manner and criteria for the evaluation of incoming complaints and other requests as well as the process of prioritization of extraordinary checks to public bodies, from the General Directorate of Financial Controls of the General Secretariat for Fiscal Policy.
The score that each case gathers, will determine whether it will be investigated, or whether it will be referenced in… calendars.
Regarding the evaluation criteria of the incoming complaints and the prioritization of controls, the decision of Mr.. Skylakali provides for the complaints, priority is set, guided on the one hand by the handling of cases on the basis of the principles of transparency and equal treatment and on the other hand by the avoidance of limitation of any offenses or administrative sanctions due to age.
For that reason, requests / complaints are classified in descending order based on an algorithm in which they participate, with the corresponding gravity factor, the following criteria:
1) Criterion of origin of complaint / request for control
Priority shall be given to audit requests submitted by the Minister or Deputy Minister of Finance or the Governor of the National Transparency Authority. (Ε.Α.Δ.).
The weighting factors of the source of complaint / control are:
a) for audit requests of the Minister or Deputy Minister of Finance and the Commander of E.A.D., ten (10),
b) for requests of other administrative authorities, three (3) and
c) for complaints / requests of natural persons, one (1).
2) The clarity of the complaint / request
The clarity factors are:
- for completely vague to incomprehensible complaints / requests, zero (0),
- for complaints / requests stating the time (specific management year), the place of the reported event and / or specific persons involved, one (1) and
- for complaints that mention specific details, facts and / or there is a clear reference to or attachment to such documents which constitute the information referred to in the complaint, three (3).
3) The competence / compatibility of the complaint
The coefficients of gravity are:
- For cases which refer to bodies that do not fall within the scope of the article 3 of Law. 3492/2006 and the request does not come from the Minister or Deputy Minister of Finance or the Commander of the Unified Transparency Authority E.A.D., zero (0) and transmission of a file to the competent Service.
- For cases that refer to bodies that fall within the scope of the article 3 of Law. 3492/2006, or the request for control comes from the Minister of Finance or the Commander of the Unified Transparency Authority E.A.D., one (1).
- For cases that refer to bodies that fall within the scope of the article 3 of Law. 3492/2006, but under the control of another Service, zero (0) and transmission of a file to the competent Service.
4) The time of introduction of the case in the G.D.D.E., based on the protocol date of the incoming document
The coefficients of gravity of antiquity are:
- for requests / complaints submitted to the Service during the last calendar year, one (1),
- for imported more than one year and up to five calendar years, four (4),
- for imports over five years and up to ten calendar years, two (2),
- for imports over ten years and up to twenty calendar years, one (1) and
- for imports over twenty calendar years, zero (0).
As the time of introduction of the case in the G.D.D.E.. means the time of submission of the request / complaint to the abolished Service of the Financial Inspection or to another Audit Office of the Greek State.
5) Carrying out or not a previous check
Any previous or non-prior inspection (excluded controls following a prosecutor's order), in management use of the last five years by G.D.D.E., in order to give priority to the bodies of the article 3 of Law. 3492/2006 which have not been audited.
The weighting factor in case no previous inspection has been carried out in the last five years is three (3). Otherwise it is one (1).
6) The amount of the annual expenses of the institution, for which the complaint / audit request, in the year 2019
The weighting factors for the amount of the annual expenditure are:
- for annual expenditure up to 500.000 euro, one (1),
- for annual expenditure from 500.001 euro up 1.000.000 euro, (2),
- for annual expenditure from 1.000.001 euro up 3.000.000 euro, three (3),
- for annual expenditure from 3.000.001 euro up 10.000.000 euro, four (4),
- for annual expenditure from 10.000.001 euro up 20.000.000 euro, five (5),
- for annual expenditure from 20.000.001 euro up 50.000.000 euro, six (6) and
- for annual expenditure from 50.000.001 Euros and over, seven (7).
The product of the above factors of each case is the degree of gravity, which determines the order of control priority in accordance with the above (descending assortment).
In case the product of the above rates is the same for more than one case of complaint / request, for the descending classification, between only the above cases, takes into account the amount of the annual cost of the defendants the complaint / request for control of bodies, as reflected in his report 2019.
Assumptions that the product of the above coefficients are zero are put on file.