Something I think would be very good to understand (from the Arts Council or elsewhere) is: did the misrepresentation of the services Prime Events offered affect the amount of money they received? Not excusing them potentially lying about it, but if the amount of funding was based on other metrics rather than the marketing guff statement, and the Arts Council's auditers are happy the money went to the correct places, did fraud really take place?
I suppose they could have pivoted after the application to actually deliver these services and did provide more than security etc, which would make the "evidence" stack up against ACE's funding metrics? Possibly. There are plenty of instances where funding is completely future-focused, granted on the basis of helping to expand an organisation's remit, for example. And plenty of cultural organisations used the Culture Recovery Fund to pivot, as well as to cover previous losses or get "back to normal". But surely the main issue is still that the company submitted an application with false information, and perhaps then also the due diligence wasn't completed by ACE in checking evidence of activities prior to the application (not just after). It's a shameful business, all these various news stories about people abusing the support systems and tender processes from Covid times, particularly from those so vocal in calling for more government support. It is so disheartening.
I would be asking The Arts Council to name the independent qualified accountant they reference and ask if it is usual to outsource grant funding decisions if that is what happened
Something I think would be very good to understand (from the Arts Council or elsewhere) is: did the misrepresentation of the services Prime Events offered affect the amount of money they received? Not excusing them potentially lying about it, but if the amount of funding was based on other metrics rather than the marketing guff statement, and the Arts Council's auditers are happy the money went to the correct places, did fraud really take place?
I suppose they could have pivoted after the application to actually deliver these services and did provide more than security etc, which would make the "evidence" stack up against ACE's funding metrics? Possibly. There are plenty of instances where funding is completely future-focused, granted on the basis of helping to expand an organisation's remit, for example. And plenty of cultural organisations used the Culture Recovery Fund to pivot, as well as to cover previous losses or get "back to normal". But surely the main issue is still that the company submitted an application with false information, and perhaps then also the due diligence wasn't completed by ACE in checking evidence of activities prior to the application (not just after). It's a shameful business, all these various news stories about people abusing the support systems and tender processes from Covid times, particularly from those so vocal in calling for more government support. It is so disheartening.
I would be asking The Arts Council to name the independent qualified accountant they reference and ask if it is usual to outsource grant funding decisions if that is what happened
I don't think they outsourced the funding decision. The independent accountant was the one doing the audit of where the money was spent.