Preparation for resolution of medium-sized and small banks in the EURO area - Results of a parallel audit of Supreme Audit Institutions on banking resolution

Report ID: 339

In 2012, the European Union (EU) decided to set up a European Banking Union for the euro area. The Banking Union is responsible to ensure that the EU rules for supervision and resolution are implemented effectively and consistently across the euro area and in other participating countries.

In December 2017, a group of national Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) united in the Task Force on European Banking Union published a report on national supervision on medium-sized and smaller banks – or “Less Significant Institutions” (LSIs4) – under the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM). This report is available at:

https://intosai-cooperativeaudits.org/catalog/report/report-of-the-task-force-on-european-banking-union-on-prudential-supervision-of-medium-sized-and-small-less-significant-institutions-in-the-european-union-after-the-introduction-of-the-single-supervisory-mechanism

In 2018, the Contact Committee of the heads of Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) in the EU mandated a group of SAIs united in the Task Force Banking Union to initiate a parallel audit on the functioning of the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) in the preparatory activities for the resolution of medium-sized and small banks – or Less Significant Institutions (LSIs) – under the remit of the National Resolution Authorities (NRAs)  in selected countries in the euro area.

The report is aimed to provide insight into the way the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) is set up and carried out for LSIs in different euro area countries, and what potential risks are involved. In addition, the second aim is to identify to what extent SAIs are actually able to exercise their audit mandates and obtain full access to documents required.

The scope of this parallel audit is restricted to resolution planning for medium-sized and small banks. Three research questions were devised for this audit:

1. Are NRAs adequately equipped and prepared to carry out the resolution task regarding medium-sized and small banks?

2. How is the preparation for resolution activities regarding medium-sized and small banks being carried out in practice by the NRAs?

3. Do SAIs face any barriers in auditing banking resolution and obtaining access to relevant documents?

4. How do Ministers of Finance comply with their responsibilities for the functioning of the resolution mechanism? Do they comply with them adequately in practice, including accountability to parliament?

Source:https://www.eca.europa.eu/sites/cc/Lists/CCDocuments/Task_Force_EBU_2020/Task_Force_EBU_2020_EN.pdf

COORDINATED AUDIT ON THE PRISON SYSTEM IN BRAZIL - PHASE 2.

Report ID: 387

In view of the difficulties that many audit courts would have in maintaining an audit team focused exclusively on auditing prisons that started in 2017, for two years; it was decided to resize the work to address it entirely in two stages. (The Stage 1 report is available at: https://intosai-cooperativeaudits.org/catalog/report/coordinated-audit-of-the-brazilian-penitentiary-system-2017).

In the first stage, the topics 'electronic system for monitoring the execution of sentences', 'allocation of prisoners' and 'monthly prisoner cost' were addressed. In the second stage it was decided to deepen the analysis of mandatory fund-by-fund transfers, the governance of the prison system (integration and coordination) and the implementation of electronic monitoring systems.

The questions addressed in this second phase of the audit were:

1) Is the control exercised over the resources of the National Penitentiary Fund (Funpen) transferred to the State and Federal District funds in compliance with the requirements established by Complementary Law 79/1994 and by the rules issued by the National Penitentiary Department?

2) Is the technological resource of the electronic monitoring solution adequately implemented and available in the states and the Federal District?

3) Does the governance structure of the public policy of the penitentiary system adhere to the "coordination" and "institutionalisation" components?

4) Does the audit of the penitentiary system carried out by the criminal enforcement bodies comply with the objectives established by the Criminal Enforcement Law?

The participants in the coordinated audit were 22 courts of accounts, namely: Court of Accounts of the Federal District, the Municipalities of the State of Pará, State of Bahia, States of Acre, Alagoas, Amazonas, Amapá, Bahia, Maranhão, Minas Gerais, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Pará, Paraíba, Piauí, Paraná, Rio Grande do Norte, Rio Grande do Sul, Rondônia, Roraima, Sergipe, and Tocantins.

Source: https://tcu.jusbrasil.com.br/jurisprudencia/574057393/relatorio-de-auditoria-ra-ra-2609620170 ,https://legis.senado.leg.br/sdleg-getter/documento?dm=7733520&disposition=inline

INFORME DE AUDITORÍA INTEGRADO DE EVALUACIÓN DE LA REGULARIDAD DE LAS TRANSFERENCIAS OBLIGATORIAS DE RECURSOS DEL FONDO PENITENCIARIO NACIONAL (FUNPEN) A LAS UNIDADES FEDERATIVAS

Report ID: 389

• Esta auditoría se suma a las otras dos importantes inspecciones sobre el sistema penitenciario brasileño, examinado por las sentencias 2.643/2017 (TC 003.673/2017-0) y 972/2018 (TC 026.096/2017-0), del Pleno, en los que se trató específicamente las etapas 1 y 2 de auditoría coordinada con los tribunales de cuentas municipales y estatales, respectivamente.
• Se realizó una auditoría integrada, en las modalidades operativa y de cumplimiento, cuyo objetivo fue evaluar la regularidad y el desempeño de las transferencias obligatorias de recursos del Fondo Nacional Penitenciario (Funpen) a los estados y al Distrito Federal, para verificar en qué medida estas transferencias de recursos han respondido a las necesidades estructurales del sistema penitenciario nacional sistema penitenciario nacional, así como destacar los principales obstáculos para el éxito de la política pública.
• La selección de las Unidades Federales auditadas se basó en la adhesión de las secretarías del TCU en los estados a la fiscalización centralizada, realizada bajo la coordinación de SecexDefesa. Diez unidades técnicas del TCU participaron en los trabajos en los estados de Bahía, Ceará, Minas Gerais, Mato Grosso do Sul, Pará, Pernambuco, Piauí, Paraná, Rio Grande do Sul y Santa Catarina. SecexDefense, además de consolidar las conclusiones de la auditoría en un único informe, realizó una auditoría piloto en el estado de Goiás, UF elegida por el alto nivel de ejecución financiera de los recursos de Funpen. Recursos de Funpen. Secex-Defensa también aplicó los procedimientos de auditoría en el Distrito Federal, lo que hace un total de 12 UF.
• Se abordaron tres preguntas de auditoría, sub divididas en sub preguntas:
• ¿ El sistema de transferencias obligatoria de recursos de FUNPEN es sostenible desde el punto de vista presupuestario y está diseñado para cumplir con los principios de eficiencia y eficacia?
• ¿Los Procedimientos adoptados por el Departamento Nacional Penitenciario (DEPEN) – organismo vinculado al Ministerio de Justicia y Seguridad Pública (MJSP) y por las Unidades de la Federación (UF) en el ámbito de los traslados obligatorios de la fUNPEN son suficientes y adecuados para asegurar la aplicación regular de los recursos?
• ¿El uso de los recursos de FUNPEN en la modalidad de fondo a fondo cumple con la legislación de licitaciones y contratos y con las regulaciones del Depen?

Fuente: https://tcu.jusbrasil.com.br/jurisprudencia/729227607/relatorio-de-auditoria-ra-ra-1804720181/voto-729227895