From our project grab bag

The Public Administration Probity Screening Act (BIBOB) enables a municipality to screen for criminal activities in, among other things, an application for a licence. The National Bibob Office (LBB) assesses the degree of risk that a government decision will be used for criminal purposes on the basis of the criteria set out in Article 3 of the Bibob Act and the associated case law. The Bibob Act contains the following four grounds for revoking or refusing a government decision:

• Ground A: the serious risk that a government decision will be used to gain criminal advantages;
• Ground B: the serious risk that a government decision will be used to commit criminal offences;
• A criminal offence committed to obtain or retain a government decision;
• The refusal of the applicant or holder of the decision to provide the LBB with additional information when requested.

A local authority saw both an A ground and a B ground for refusing a catering licence application. Ultimately, the court had to rule on the local authority's refusal. The main threat identified by the local authority concerned the deliberate submission of incorrect and incomplete tax returns. In 2019, the tax authorities had made a substantial adjustment to the company's turnover. The figures provided by the company gave the local authority too much uncertainty as to whether this entrepreneur had reformed his ways.

A tax specialist who had been called in at short notice sent a letter in which the local authority was heavily criticised for its assessments. The solicitor asked us for an expert opinion on the tax specialist's letter. We did not agree with his assessment that everything was now in order. In our investigation, we found that several versions of the annual accounts were in circulation, that the profit distribution deviated from the partnership agreement, that the gross margin had remained well below the norm for a number of years and that, without any acceptable explanation, there had been a sudden huge jump in turnover and margin in the last reported year. This was probably done in order to obtain the licence.

Hats off to the critical civil servant who did not allow himself to be fobbed off, but kept asking questions. Less praise for the advisors involved with the entrepreneur, who uncritically accept figures and even go so far as to defend them.