:00:00. > :00:10.Washington is about to host the biggest fundraiser the world has
:00:11. > :00:17.ever seen. World leaders are gathering here to try to raise $15
:00:18. > :00:20.billion to fight world disease. It's the celebrity-backed way to tackle
:00:21. > :00:26.disease in the developing world. It's called the Global Fund. No-one
:00:27. > :00:31.will be denied these life-saving treatments. And we're already signed
:00:32. > :00:36.up. At a time of cuts, the UK's just pledged another ?1 billion. We will
:00:37. > :00:43.be saving a life every three minutes for the next three years. But is the
:00:44. > :00:47.Global Fund doing enough to protect our aid money? A proportion of every
:00:48. > :00:51.tax dollar that they give can also be lost to fraud and corruption. The
:00:52. > :00:54.main thing is to find the fraud. Panorama has evidence of delayed
:00:55. > :01:02.reports and unpublished allegations of corruption. That is a cover-up,
:01:03. > :01:07.the report has been suppressed. And we confront one organisation that
:01:08. > :01:12.benefitted. Are you lying to me? I'm not lying. Well, why not tell the
:01:13. > :01:30.truth, that it's in the report? It's not in the report.
:01:31. > :01:43.Our aid money can change lives. Here in northern Cambodia, people are
:01:44. > :01:45.being saved. The mosquitoes carry a deadly type of malaria. Hundreds
:01:46. > :02:06.used to die. This matters because malaria is a
:02:07. > :02:08.very real threat here. This region has the worst record for malaria
:02:09. > :02:15.cases in Cambodia. Now, death rates are falling because
:02:16. > :02:27.of a simple solution. Anti-mosquito Neds that we have
:02:28. > :02:38.helped pay for have given people protection. This net is extremely
:02:39. > :02:41.beneficial. For us, it helps us from contracting malaria. It is not just
:02:42. > :02:48.stopping mosquitoes, it's for all other insects, like lice. And it's
:02:49. > :02:53.working. Last year, nobody was killed by Malaria in these hills.
:02:54. > :02:57.Now, much of the money that's spent here on the ground saving lives
:02:58. > :03:01.comes from you and me, the UK taxpayer. But how it's actually
:03:02. > :03:09.spent is decided by another organisation. A multi-billion-pound
:03:10. > :03:13.operation called the Global Fund. Action! You can't argue about this
:03:14. > :03:18.result. This result is measurable in millions of lives. We must all be
:03:19. > :03:21.determined to finish the race. As you can see from this slick video,
:03:22. > :03:24.the Global Fund has some high-profile supporters. It's an aid
:03:25. > :03:26.organisation that's already raised $28 billion from governments and
:03:27. > :03:28.private donors like Microsoft founder Bill Gates and the rock star
:03:29. > :03:37.Bono. The money is used to tackle three
:03:38. > :03:44.big killer diseases - AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. More and more
:03:45. > :03:53.people reach the point in their disease where they need these drugs.
:03:54. > :03:57.The results speak for themselves in Cambodia. I mean, it has been
:03:58. > :04:01.miraculous. I mean, you look at the numbers in the drop of TB in the
:04:02. > :04:05.country, the drop in the cases of malaria. You look at HIV. And that
:04:06. > :04:17.is all direct linked to Global Fund supporting these programmes.
:04:18. > :04:24.The UK Government has already given more than ?1 billion to the Global
:04:25. > :04:27.Fund. Two months ago, the Government announced it was giving ?1 billion
:04:28. > :04:33.more, part of an aid budget ring-fenced from other spending
:04:34. > :04:42.cuts. It makes us the world's second-biggest donor.
:04:43. > :04:48.We will be saving a life every three minutes for the next three years.
:04:49. > :04:53.Which is a massive, massive amount of people's lives. But it's not just
:04:54. > :04:54.the lives saved. It's also the diseases prevented that's equally
:04:55. > :05:10.important. Ten years in. 7.7 million people are alive because
:05:11. > :05:12.of the Global Fund. That was two years ago. The Global Fund now claim
:05:13. > :05:25.even more lives saved, 8.7 million. Let's be clear, millions have been
:05:26. > :05:27.saved, and that's incredible. But the detail matters when you're
:05:28. > :05:31.asking donors for billions of pounds. Even some of those who
:05:32. > :05:37.support the Fund question the figures. I think 8.7 million lives
:05:38. > :05:41.does represent a degree of spin. It's the Global Fund trying to make
:05:42. > :05:45.itself look good in the eyes of donors. I think a more accurate
:05:46. > :05:48.figure of the number of lives saved by the Global Fund alone might be
:05:49. > :05:50.between four to five million lives saved, as opposed to 8.7 million
:05:51. > :06:02.lives saved. We believe, and we are told, that
:06:03. > :06:05.our numbers are actually conservative. We work with the
:06:06. > :06:08.leading health organisations in the world that run the calculations with
:06:09. > :06:11.us, the WHO, UNAIDS, other global health organisations. They're the
:06:12. > :06:20.gold standard. The numbers are important because
:06:21. > :06:25.there's a lot invested in the Global Fund's system for handing out aid.
:06:26. > :06:31.In a nutshell, our Government gets the Global Fund to do some of its
:06:32. > :06:35.aid work. The idea was that the private sector would take on the
:06:36. > :06:38.lead role in the whole programme for international development around the
:06:39. > :06:40.world. And many of the different donors, including the UK Government
:06:41. > :06:46.Department for International Development, followed that model.
:06:47. > :06:49.Many people think it is the best way. The Global Fund lets local
:06:50. > :06:52.organisations manage the projects and the cash. It's less
:06:53. > :06:58.bureaucratic, but it comes with risks. It's not the Global Fund
:06:59. > :07:02.going out itself with its own personnel and doing things to a
:07:03. > :07:07.country. It's giving the money so the country can do it itself. And
:07:08. > :07:12.there is, almost by definition, greater risk in that. The risk, and
:07:13. > :07:17.it can happen anywhere, is corruption. If you simply hand over
:07:18. > :07:20.the cash to local governments and local organisations, then there's a
:07:21. > :07:27.chance that the money won't reach the people it's supposed to help.
:07:28. > :07:35.Here in Cambodia, over the last ten years the Global Fund has given
:07:36. > :07:38.grants of more than $330 million. We know it's made a difference in
:07:39. > :07:45.fighting those key three diseases, but there's also been corruption.
:07:46. > :07:50.The Global Fund came here to do an in-depth investigation in 2011. A
:07:51. > :07:55.year ago, it said its report would be out in the coming weeks. When we
:07:56. > :08:02.were in Cambodia two months ago, the report still hadn't been published.
:08:03. > :08:04.This obviously is not in the interest of the programmes. The
:08:05. > :08:10.development partners in Cambodia are not happy with it. I think even the
:08:11. > :08:15.Global Fund is not happy with it, that this report has been pending
:08:16. > :08:19.for so long. We were leaked a copy of the unpublished investigation
:08:20. > :08:24.report from inside the Global Fund. It is an uncomfortable read for
:08:25. > :08:27.donors, including UK taxpayers. For starters, it says deals worth $20
:08:28. > :08:35.million for mosquito Neds were won through improper commissions. The
:08:36. > :08:38.detail in this report is extraordinary. It says that
:08:39. > :08:40.officials at the National Malaria Centre saw commissions, which are
:08:41. > :08:48.effectively kickbacks and bribes, as a compulsory component of the
:08:49. > :08:49.procurement process. And that it was a requirement imposed by senior
:08:50. > :09:08.government officials. Two senior officials are said to
:09:09. > :09:15.have taken more than half a million dollars in improper commissions.
:09:16. > :09:19.With AIDS funding, there was a similar story. An official issuing
:09:20. > :09:26.contracts admitted taking a 15% commission on every deal.
:09:27. > :09:34.Tia Phalla is chair of the group that oversees Global Fund spending
:09:35. > :09:40.in Cambodia. In some of the HIV programmes, we understand that it
:09:41. > :09:44.was effectively a 15% rate. I have no information about that. But
:09:45. > :09:48.doesn't that make you very nervous? That's in the area that you look
:09:49. > :09:55.after. And it's essentially a 15% rate. You've gone very quiet, that
:09:56. > :09:58.seems to me to be quite shocking. No, no, no, I'm not shocking. You
:09:59. > :10:02.know, the problem is, like, you know, how can you come with some
:10:03. > :10:10.picture that I don't know you know? You must have seen it in the report.
:10:11. > :10:13.Sir? The problem, as you know, as we talked from the beginning, is that
:10:14. > :10:22.needs to be confirmed, that needs to be confirmed.
:10:23. > :10:25.The same leaked, unpublished report also said another organisation has
:10:26. > :10:38.questions to answer. It's a Cambodian health organisation
:10:39. > :10:41.called MEDiCAM. Investigators say what they found here was evidence of
:10:42. > :10:47.misuse or misappropriation of tens of thousands of dollars. And just so
:10:48. > :10:53.we're clear, misappropriation means theft. This was what the report
:10:54. > :10:56.said. Double billing of staff posts, double billing of computer equipment
:10:57. > :11:04.and consultants who were charged to donors but were never used. Dr Sin
:11:05. > :11:07.Sumony runs MEDiCAM. He seemed confident the allegations of
:11:08. > :11:12.corruption wouldn't be in the final report. I understand that
:11:13. > :11:21.investigators found evidence of serious corruption here at MEDiCAM.
:11:22. > :11:24.No, no, no, no, no. Now, let's be clear, as I understand it, they're
:11:25. > :11:28.quite specific, we're talking about people who are doing jobs that have
:11:29. > :11:30.been charged to different people. Computers that were bought and then
:11:31. > :11:36.double billed, accounts that weren't right. This is what the evidence is
:11:37. > :11:41.on MEDiCAM, as I understand it. What do you say about that? No, nothing,
:11:42. > :11:43.there is nothing of that. Investigators even found evidence of
:11:44. > :11:50.apparently falsified documents on Dr Sumony's own office computer. That
:11:51. > :11:53.the investigators found documents altered to make it look like $10,000
:11:54. > :12:02.had been spent, but in fact nothing had been spent. No, there is nothing
:12:03. > :12:05.like that. Just to be clear, you were telling me definitively. Very
:12:06. > :12:08.clear, very clear, definite. I think if you keep going like this
:12:09. > :12:19.interview, I prefer that we stop right here.
:12:20. > :12:27.You might think a report like this would be a disaster for the Global
:12:28. > :12:30.Fund. In fact, this is at the heart of what the Fund is supposed to
:12:31. > :12:34.offer. Transparency and zero tolerance of corruption. This
:12:35. > :12:40.investigation was part of the Global Fund's promise to protect taxpayers'
:12:41. > :12:44.money. And it was this man's job to find and expose fraud. John Parsons,
:12:45. > :12:51.a former director at the UK's National Audit Office, was the
:12:52. > :12:54.Global Fund's Inspector General. I think the Office of Inspector
:12:55. > :12:57.General under Parsons had a reputation for going out to country
:12:58. > :13:03.level, to the field, which is of course the best way to audit. You
:13:04. > :13:09.can't audit organisations by sitting in headquarters. Mr Parsons seemed
:13:10. > :13:16.to find a lot of fraud. In 2010, he published a series of reports.
:13:17. > :13:19.Corruption became a global story. The Global Fund Against AIDS,
:13:20. > :13:20.Tuberculosis and Malaria has announced new financial safeguards
:13:21. > :13:30.following allegations of corruption. Rooting out corruption was exactly
:13:31. > :13:34.what the fund's biggest donor wanted. The United States had
:13:35. > :13:38.insisted on an independent Inspector General. But rather than donors
:13:39. > :13:44.feeling reassured that fraud was being hunted down, all this honesty
:13:45. > :13:51.caused panic. Donors including the European Union suspended payments.
:13:52. > :13:54.People were scared to spend, you know, so three stories about fraud
:13:55. > :13:59.basically turned off the money totally. It had a huge chilling
:14:00. > :14:02.effect. So, I think it's been quite a negative experience and it hasn't
:14:03. > :14:08.helped create incentives for more rigorous fraud prevention. A year
:14:09. > :14:12.ago, the man whose investigations prompted the bad publicity was
:14:13. > :14:16.fired. The Global Fund says John Parsons was sacked for
:14:17. > :14:21.unsatisfactory performance. They said there had been three critical
:14:22. > :14:27.reviews of his work. Bernard Rivers founded an organisation that
:14:28. > :14:30.monitors the Global Fund. It is my understanding that Parsons was
:14:31. > :14:34.sacked because he was not a good manager and not a good leader. I
:14:35. > :14:38.dealt with him many times, I criticised him and his office in
:14:39. > :14:40.print many times, I concluded when the board finally fired him that the
:14:41. > :14:51.board had done the right thing. But, just a year before he was
:14:52. > :14:54.fired, the work of Mr Parsons and his team had been praised by an
:14:55. > :14:59.independent report, which called it...
:15:00. > :15:04.The only risk-mitigation strategy within the Global Fund that has
:15:05. > :15:08.worked. Panorama has discovered there was a lot more going on behind
:15:09. > :15:09.the scenes. We've been told inspectors felt under pressure to
:15:10. > :15:22.change the way they work. In public, the Fund was promising
:15:23. > :15:25.zero tolerance on corruption. But, in private, we understand the
:15:26. > :15:27.Inspector General was being put under pressure to water down his
:15:28. > :15:36.reports. Documents from inside the Global
:15:37. > :15:40.Fund show the inspectors felt they were being undermined. Saying they
:15:41. > :15:47.were repeatedly told not to look so deep. One said... The organisation,
:15:48. > :15:50.while parading transparency and openness, in practice views
:15:51. > :15:56.disclosure of results as negative, harmful and unwanted.
:15:57. > :16:05.Was there an attempt after 2011 to keep corruption quiet? No, no, quite
:16:06. > :16:09.the opposite. It would actually be a silly reaction. Because the worst
:16:10. > :16:14.thing you can do in this world today is try to hide things and be
:16:15. > :16:18.non-transparent. You have got to pursue and be honest and open and
:16:19. > :16:19.that's why we have pursued transparency and accountability so
:16:20. > :16:28.much. The issue of independence came to a
:16:29. > :16:36.head when the Inspector General stood his ground. The United States
:16:37. > :16:39.only releases all the cash if it is satisfied that the inspector is
:16:40. > :16:44.independent and free to do his job. John Parsons felt unable to say he
:16:45. > :16:51.was. A whistle blowing organisation has investigated some of the claims
:16:52. > :16:55.surrounding his dismissal. He was told that he should soften up
:16:56. > :16:59.reports, that his site visits should be curtailed. He should be a little
:17:00. > :17:05.bit more lenient in the conclusions that he drew and that was pressure
:17:06. > :17:08.brought to bear on his office. Then he's asked to certify that his
:17:09. > :17:17.office is acting independently and he says no.
:17:18. > :17:21.Without Parsons confirming that his office was independent and undue
:17:22. > :17:26.influence, the money from one of the fund's biggest donors would be at
:17:27. > :17:31.risk. At least $250 million was on the line. If the United States
:17:32. > :17:36.withheld the cash it would be hugely damaging to the Fund. Pressure was
:17:37. > :17:43.growing. John Parsons wrote to his bosses complaining about harassment,
:17:44. > :17:46.intimidation and retaliation. It is clear that your true intention is to
:17:47. > :17:51.weaken the function, simply because you don't like what we find and
:17:52. > :17:53.report upon. The following morning he was sacked. Even some Fund
:17:54. > :18:01.supporters were shocked. This is somebody, whose job was to
:18:02. > :18:08.ferret out waste and abuse and he did a very good job of it. It was
:18:09. > :18:10.embarrassing to the fund. And you know conveniently letting go of the
:18:11. > :18:15.person who exposed these problems was you know based on the evidence
:18:16. > :18:21.at the time akin to a hatchet job. Simply not true. It's simply not
:18:22. > :18:24.true but from what I have seen the decision was entirely based on
:18:25. > :18:27.performance and the inspector general's office since he left has
:18:28. > :18:30.actually published more reports, has started more investigations and is
:18:31. > :18:37.better staffed than when he was there. Those are the facts. After Mr
:18:38. > :18:39.Parson's dismissal, that vital US funding was approved. He's now
:18:40. > :18:42.taking legal action for unfair dismissal and defamation. But the
:18:43. > :18:46.Global Fund is fighting the case. Tonight, world leaders are in
:18:47. > :18:51.Washington. The Global Fund wants to raise $15 billion. But should
:18:52. > :18:56.donors, like the UK taxpayer, be worried about their investment?
:18:57. > :19:01.A proportion of every tax dollar that they give can also be lost to
:19:02. > :19:07.fraud and corruption. The main thing is to find the fraud. Fraud will
:19:08. > :19:10.exist. It's that we know how to find it and then that it's transparently
:19:11. > :19:16.shared with the world and those that are responsible are prosecuted.
:19:17. > :19:22.Remember that leaked report into corruption in Cambodia that was
:19:23. > :19:23.expected a year ago? - well the official report was finally
:19:24. > :19:29.published last month. Panorama can reveal there are
:19:30. > :19:31.significant differences between what the investigators wrote in the
:19:32. > :19:38.unpublished version and what the Global Fund now tells the world.
:19:39. > :19:42.For example, the unpublished report recommended the three organisations
:19:43. > :19:47.involved in the corruption should be banned for up to five years. That
:19:48. > :19:55.was gone from the published version. And remember MEDiCAM? Evidence in
:19:56. > :20:01.our leaked report suggested they were involved in four counts of
:20:02. > :20:11.corruption. In the published report, there's only one count left. Page
:20:12. > :20:14.148. It fails to mention the $105,000 supposedly spent on
:20:15. > :20:17.consultants. When inspectors tracked many of them down, they discovered
:20:18. > :20:21.these individuals had not been hired to perform consulting work and did
:20:22. > :20:26.not receive the payments recorded. It looked like a scam. The Global
:20:27. > :20:28.Fund only lost $20,000 because most of the consultants were paid for by
:20:29. > :20:37.the UK taxpayer. It cost us $80,000. MEDiCAM's boss denies the
:20:38. > :20:43.allegations against his organisation. Well, let's just
:20:44. > :20:50.choose one example, did you or did you not? You tell me, this is your
:20:51. > :20:54.chance. Did you or did you not bill more than $100,000 for consultants
:20:55. > :20:58.who didn't do any work for you at all? No. That didn't happen? No,
:20:59. > :21:04.that did not happen. Are you lying to me? I'm not lying. Well, why not
:21:05. > :21:11.tell the truth that's in the report? It's not in the report. We don't
:21:12. > :21:14.know, at the moment, what is the finalisation on the report. We have
:21:15. > :21:18.to see the finalisation report. That was filmed before the Global Fund's
:21:19. > :21:20.report was published. When it was, there was also no mention of the
:21:21. > :21:26.apparently falsified documents being found on Dr Sumony's computer.
:21:27. > :21:32.The fact that a report for a country that is a major recipient of funds
:21:33. > :21:36.of grants is suppressed for almost a year and then apparently the version
:21:37. > :21:37.that is to be released is somewhat less detailed than the original
:21:38. > :21:53.version, that is a cover up. The report has been suppressed. The
:21:54. > :21:58.Executive Director of the Global Fund agreed to an interview in
:21:59. > :22:01.Washington last Friday. We'd told him we wanted to ask about the
:22:02. > :22:04.Inspector General and the Cambodian report. But when I put the
:22:05. > :22:07.questions, he said he couldn't answer all the points. He didn't
:22:08. > :22:11.know why Cambodian allegations had been removed. I would imagine
:22:12. > :22:16.because they found out they were inaccurate or shouldn't be included.
:22:17. > :22:19.Allegations of corruption that directly the UK taxpayer have
:22:20. > :22:22.disappeared before it gets to the final report. Are you concerned
:22:23. > :22:26.about that? Depends on what the Inspector General says. I can't tell
:22:27. > :22:31.you that because I'm not involved in that process. Yesterday, the fund
:22:32. > :22:34.told us the Cambodia report was delayed because fresh evidence
:22:35. > :22:37.emerged a year ago. On the corruption allegations being
:22:38. > :22:38.removed, it said reports were limited to Global Fund grants and
:22:39. > :22:45.confirmed facts. The UK Government says it was warned
:22:46. > :22:52.about potential losses at MEDiCAM, but wasn't given the details.
:22:53. > :22:57.Obviously, I will ask the Global Fund but this is not something I'm
:22:58. > :23:01.aware of. You're aware of it because you've seen a report that I have not
:23:02. > :23:04.seen. While we were in Cambodia, we obtained another report from inside
:23:05. > :23:10.the Global Fund. It was about corruption in Africa - an alleged
:23:11. > :23:14.ten million euro scam. But this is the terrifying bit. It left nearly
:23:15. > :23:15.two million people, who thought they were protected, still at risk from
:23:16. > :23:26.malaria. It was in Burkina Faso. A company
:23:27. > :23:31.with apparently no experience of supplying mosquito nets won the
:23:32. > :23:35.contract to provide two million. The local company took ten million euros
:23:36. > :23:39.but bought cheaper nets from China which hadn't been properly treated
:23:40. > :23:42.with insecticide. The investigation was finished a year ago, but the
:23:43. > :23:52.report still hasn't been released. Are you worried by that? A year
:23:53. > :23:55.since that report was concluded and you still don't know about it? I am
:23:56. > :23:59.worried if there is verified corruption that we don't know about
:24:00. > :24:03.yet. I can't comment on that because I don't know. I haven't seen the
:24:04. > :24:06.report. The Fund replaced the nets and says the Burkina Faso report
:24:07. > :24:09.will be published when the investigation is complete and its
:24:10. > :24:14.standards of disclosure remain exceptionally high.
:24:15. > :24:19.If the Global Fund is imperfect in delaying for three months publishing
:24:20. > :24:22.something, naughty Global Fund, but more naughty the other donors who
:24:23. > :24:31.probably would never publish that stuff at all.
:24:32. > :24:36.Panorama has discovered that other Global Fund reports haven't been
:24:37. > :24:39.published. The investigations are also into corruption and were
:24:40. > :24:48.started more than a year ago but they have not been released.
:24:49. > :24:55.The official expression is potential value at risk. It's an estimate of
:24:56. > :24:58.the Global Fund money that could be lost to fraud. In Burundi, $2.7
:24:59. > :25:07.million. In the Democratic Republic of Congo,
:25:08. > :25:15.3.3 million. In Ghana, six million. And in Niger, $15 million. So, why
:25:16. > :25:18.haven't the figures been published? Well, unfortunately, there was a
:25:19. > :25:20.significant backlog from the previous inspector general that the
:25:21. > :25:24.current inspector general is working through. They started more than a
:25:25. > :25:27.year ago? You will have to ask the inspector general because it's an
:25:28. > :25:30.independent function. All I know is the inspector general waits until
:25:31. > :25:34.they have verification and accuracy of data, there's a due process that
:25:35. > :25:37.they need to go through. So, where does this leave donors to the Global
:25:38. > :25:45.Fund, including British taxpayers, who have just invested another ?1
:25:46. > :25:48.billion. You know, this is a huge amount of money and you need to make
:25:49. > :25:54.sure that money from the British taxpayer on my behalf is being spent
:25:55. > :25:57.wisely, rightly, etc, etc. What really matters is firstly that the
:25:58. > :25:58.Fund exposes these things itself, which it has, and secondly that it
:25:59. > :26:07.acts on them. And, in Cambodia, we found an
:26:08. > :26:11.example that shows why transparency is so important.
:26:12. > :26:16.It's Dr Sumony again. His organisation might have been accused
:26:17. > :26:18.of stealing taxpayers' cash a year ago but the aid money is still
:26:19. > :26:26.flowing. Is MEDiCAM still getting money from
:26:27. > :26:27.the Global Fund? After this ongoing investigation, we currently got the
:26:28. > :26:41.second phase. How much is that? This year is 700
:26:42. > :26:50.over 720,000. So, you have got another $720,000. Ahem. Is that
:26:51. > :26:53.right, even if it is just allegations, should you be given
:26:54. > :26:57.that amount of money, it's not, it seems to me like not learning the
:26:58. > :27:00.lessons. I don't think so. I think, number one, we did not commit that
:27:01. > :27:03.corruption. Number two, there has been a lot of system that, through
:27:04. > :27:08.the Global Fund support, that their financial management system has
:27:09. > :27:11.improved. Despite the allegations, Dr Sumony remains on the Global
:27:12. > :27:16.Fund's management committee in Cambodia. His organisation is still
:27:17. > :27:20.getting the Fund's cash and he is deciding who else gets it. The
:27:21. > :27:25.Global Fund suspended contracts with two companies who admitted paying
:27:26. > :27:30.improper commissions. It says there is now greater scrutiny. It is
:27:31. > :27:36.recovering stolen funds from MEDiCAM but wants to protect services. We
:27:37. > :27:39.don't want to punish the wrong people. As soon as we have an
:27:40. > :27:43.alternative for those individuals, that they don't life-saving services
:27:44. > :27:44.disrupted, then we can take action. That's zero tolerance, that's zero
:27:45. > :27:52.tolerance. Donors like the Bill and Melinda
:27:53. > :27:54.Gates Foundation say the Global Fund is one of the smartest investments
:27:55. > :28:04.they can make to save lives. And we have seen the sort of
:28:05. > :28:09.difference it makes to millions of lives - which is why it is so
:28:10. > :28:15.important the money gets through. Corruption damages trust and makes
:28:16. > :28:18.fools out of donors. But its real impact is felt in places like this
:28:19. > :28:28.because life-saving care is stolen away. The Global Fund is today
:28:29. > :28:33.trying to raise another $15 billion. Everyone agrees with the good work.
:28:34. > :28:35.We just need to be sure that the money gets to the people who need
:28:36. > :28:41.it.