The E4 claims population consists of claims submitted by Kuwaiti private sector corporations and entities, other than oil sector and environmental claims, eligible to file claims under the Commission's Claim Forms for Corporations and Other Entities ( Form E ).

A total of 37 confirmed matches were identified, which related either to claims filed by the same claimant within the bedoun programme or to claims filed by the same claimant in different claim categories.

The claim of the Palestinian claimant is now before the Panel.

The claim of the Palestinian claimant is now before the Panel.

The claim of the Palestinian claimant is now before the Panel.

The E4 population consists of claims submitted by, or on behalf of, Kuwaiti private sector corporations and entities, other than oil sector and environmental claimants, eligible to file claims under the Commission's Claim Forms for Corporations and Other Entities .

The Panel reviewed the statistical data indicating that these claimants claimed more frequently for business losses and for substantially higher amounts than claimants in the regular category D claims programme.

As a result of manual searches for matching and related claims, a number of claims were identified in the fourth instalment that were submitted by wives whose husbands had filed claims, predominantly in category A , during the regular filing period.

Category A corrections higher to lower amounts Family to individual The Government of the Philippines reported that 17 claims originally filed as family claims were in fact individual claims.

The evidence provided by the claimant in support of this claim indicated that a multiplier of 10 should have been used to calculate the compensation for this claim.

Having concluded that this consolidated claim, in effect consists of 82 claims, comprising 67 managing agent and 15 insurance company claims,

A similar exercise was conducted with respect to category C for the purpose of identifying duplicate claims during claims processing.

The searches identified 104 E4 claims with approved awards of compensation in the first seven instalments as potentially overlapping with 61 claims in category C and 70 claims in category D .

In twofive of the individual claims identified as potentially overlapping with E4 claims, the Panel considers that the claim wass were not overlapping as the individual claimant was weres claiming losses that were related to the E4 claimant companies but were not overlapping losses (for example, where the individual claimant is seeking compensation for a loss of salary or management fee from the E4 claimant).

While the claimants in this instalment claimed for D2 and D3 losses more frequently than claimants in the regular category D claims programme and asserted higher claimed amounts, 103 of the 117 claims are not recommended for compensation as the claimants failed to prove the essential requirements of ownership, loss or causation.

In addition, the searches identified 287 E4 claims in the remaining E4 instalments as potentially overlapping with 168 claims in category C and 203 claims in category D .

The largest number of duplicates affected category A claims, where several countries were found to have submitted a number of claims more than once.

The following claims are illustrative of the types of D2 and D3 losses reviewed by the Panel.

Concerning the issue of duplicate claims, the secretariat indicated that it was aware of the risk of duplicate claims from the outset of claims processing and took steps to identify and eliminate such claims during the course of claims processing.

As a result, approximately 5,000 duplicate claims were identified and eliminated during the course of claims processing.

ac These are category C claims for which the substantive processing has been deferred pending the verification of the C8 business losses for stand alone, competing and overlapping issues.

There are xx category C claims for which the substantive processing has been deferred pending the verification of the C8 business losses for stand alone, competing and overlapping issues.

In response, the UNCC secretariat received a number of requests from submitting Governments to correct claims identified by the latter as duplicates, but which had not been identified by the UNCC computer program, as the basis of which the duplicates were identified fell outside the parameters of the program.

As the category D Palestinian late claims were not filed until the end of the regular category D work programme, matches between regular and Palestinian category D claims were identified upon review of the latter claims.

Iran, therefore, could have included these claim units in the submissions that it filed within these deadlines.

As the D1 Panel is not mandated to review claims of corporate entities, these losses were severed from the category D claims, and transferred to category E4 .

A claim is materially deficient if the claimant has not asserted any identifiable loss type or indicated the amount of loss being claimed.

In its review of the Claims, the Panel found that all the Claims contained a statement of claim and evidence sufficient to establish at least parts of certain loss elements alleged within the Claims.

These entities are referred to herein as Claimants .

As a result of the computer programme and manual follow up, 37,850 category A claims were identified as confirmed duplicate claims during the course of claims processing.

At times the claim preparers appeared to be more familiar with the claims than the claimants.

In the view of the Panel, this should involve the services of a qualified senior epidemiologist.

The first step was the electronic matching of claims and the manual verification of matches in order to identify those claims filed under the late claims programme by claimants who previously filed claims during the regular filing period.

Of these claims, the Panel recommends awards of compensation for two claims, while no awards are recommended for the remaining 16 claims.

Overlapping claims relate to claims by both the shareholder and the corporate entity for losses pertaining to the same corporate business.

A preliminary examination of these claims revealed that some, but not all, of the Kuwaiti companies in issue had filed claims with the Commission, which were being processed as E4 claims.

Subsequently, in response to claim development, the individual claimant stated that he had no ownership interest in the company, and that his claim relating to the company was submitted in error by his claim preparer.

One claim in the sixth instalment was found to be a duplicate of a claim awarded compensation in the fifth instalment.

Having reviewed 40 claims submitted by the Government of the Philippines, one claim submitted by the Government of India and 20 claims submitted by the Government of Jordan, the secretariat confirms that they are, indeed, duplicates and should not have been awarded compensation.

(c) In three cases, the amount awarded by the Commission and recorded as claimed was higher than the actual amount claimed by the individual.

Consequently, Jordan has failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for compensation as specified in article 35(3) of the Rules.

The individual claimant whose claim had been identified as potentially overlapping with the E4 claim provided additional evidence and claimed for losses in addition to those losses claimed by the E4 claimant.

The Office found that claimants had abused the system by filing false claims with the assistance of accounting companies in Kuwait.

Third F4 instalment, claim No. 5000450 and fourth F4 instalment, claim Nos. 5000454 and 5000466.

For example, in UNCC claim No. 3012259 the claimant seeks compensation of USD 4,930,795 for business losses.