
The grand scheme of things
Read Time: 6 mins
Written By:
Felicia Riney, D.B.A.
Imagine an organization in the middle of an accounting investigation related to the recording of fictitious revenues. The organization’s external auditors have now come to perform the year-end audit and opine on the current year’s financial statements. The organization, as it should, informs the external auditors of the investigation. These auditors naturally begin to ask questions about the investigation. The auditors inform the organization that their opinion on the current financial statements will be delayed until their questions about the investigation and the circumstances leading to it are satisfactorily answered. How can the organization handle this situation without jeopardizing the investigation? Could the organization have taken any steps to prevent the delay of the opinion on the current financial statements?
Dealing with the consequences that arise from a corporate internal investigation into alleged misconduct often raises myriad issues, and fact finding is just the start. A company’s external auditors, for example, will likely want to consider how the results and implications of the investigation will affect present and past financial statements. Here we address frequent issues companies might face after an investigation related to external auditors’ opinions on those financial statements.
To fulfill their professional obligations and opine on the company’s financial statements, auditors must ask questions when they consider a company’s post-incident financial statements: Are the transactions in question accounted for correctly and disclosed properly in the current financial statements? Should previously issued financial statements be restated? Can they rely on the representations of current management? Has the company performed a root-cause analysis? What’s the company’s remediation plan, if any? Does the company have any growing concerns that stem from the possible assessment of fines, disgorgement or other penalties?
External auditors will add forensic procedures to their usual audit procedures to understand and test the investigation team’s work and conclusions. The auditors might also request that their forensic team shadow the forensic investigators. This can be a delicate balance because companies must consider how and to what degree to involve the auditors without waiving the legal privilege that protects against public disclosure of the investigation findings.
When time is of the essence, investigators should regularly update the auditors, solicit their concerns and areas of focus, and ensure the investigation addresses them. Companies may also consider asking for the auditors’ input on key decisions and direction. For example, auditor input on keyword search terms can help identify additional relevant terms or phrases which could result in further investigative findings. If a search isn’t broad enough, say, in a procurement fraud case, investigators might not discover that other vendors were involved in the scheme.
An organization should also work with its legal counsel to determine which information, if any, it can share with the auditors. Counsel might ultimately conclude that the company should waive the privilege in dealing with regulators and auditors, which could open the door for discovery of findings to potential future class action plaintiffs seeking redress on the grounds they were harmed by the events causing the investigation and regulators. On the other hand, complete transparency at all stages of the investigation with the audit firm could mean the audit is completed more quickly and streamline interactions with regulators. Including former external auditors who understand the concerns of the current auditors on the investigation team increases the likelihood that the investigation will be sensitive to the auditors’ needs.
Management should seek the help of the investigative team in preparing for auditor issues by requesting they:
Appropriately providing auditors with timely and adequate information will ultimately help stem delays in issuing current period financial statements and avoid the prospect of having the auditors withdraw from the engagement. No organization wants to find replacement auditors when it’s suffering through an investigation.
If an organization has to restate prior financial statements, it’s much less expensive to retain the current auditors than to engage a new audit firm that will require a complete re-audit of all the years presented.
Any investigation into alleged misconduct can be taxing and distracting for a company; post-investigation issues are no less onerous. Making decisions without adequate consideration to the post-incident audit and financial statements will compound difficulties. Post-incident management must work with the investigation team, counsel and forensic accountants to mitigate post-investigation audit pitfalls.
Roger Siefert, CPA, ABV, CFF, is a principal with StoneTurn, a forensic accounting, corporate compliance and expert services firm. He can be reached at: rsiefert@stoneturn.com.
Jamal Ahmad, J.D., CFE, CPA, CFF, ACAMS, is a managing director with StoneTurn, a forensic accounting, corporate compliance and expert services firm. He can be reached at: jahmad@stoneturn.com.
Unlock full access to Fraud Magazine and explore in-depth articles on the latest trends in fraud prevention and detection.
Read Time: 6 mins
Written By:
Felicia Riney, D.B.A.
Read Time: 2 mins
Written By:
Read Time: 5 mins
Written By:
Annette Simmons-Brown, CFE
Read Time: 6 mins
Written By:
Felicia Riney, D.B.A.
Read Time: 2 mins
Written By:
Read Time: 5 mins
Written By:
Annette Simmons-Brown, CFE