IRBA Newsletter Issue 53

Issue 53 | January-March 2021 14 Matter 33 The respondent failed to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence on goodwill. In addition, there was no evaluation of the component auditor’s competence and independence, and there were inconsistencies in group audit instructions to component auditors. The respondent was sentenced to a fine of R80 000, of which R40 000 has been suspended for three years, on condition that the respondent is not found guilty of improper conduct relating to work done during the period of suspension; no cost order; and publication by the IRBA in general terms. Matter 34 The respondent failed to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence on inventory, intercompany balances and going concern. In addition, the respondent did not appropriately assess and address fraud risks that are pertinent to the audit engagement. Furthermore, the respondent did not reassess materiality prior to evaluating the effect of uncorrected misstatement identified during the audit engagement. The respondent was sentenced to a fine of R80 000, of which R40 000 has been suspended for three years, on condition that the respondent is not found guilty of improper conduct relating to work done during the period of suspension; no cost order; and publication by the IRBA in general terms. Matter 35 The respondent failed to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence on plant and equipment, impairment losses and leases. In addition, the respondent did not evaluate the training and competency of specialists utilised during the audit. Furthermore, the respondent did not appropriately address the risk regarding management override of controls. The respondent was sentenced to a fine of R120 000, of which R60 000 has been suspended for three years, on condition that the respondent is not found guilty of improper conduct relating to work done during the period of suspension; no cost order; and publication by the IRBA in general terms. Matter 36 The respondent failed to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence on accounts receivable, goodwill, inventory and taxation, and also did not address deficiencies in the general information technology controls on the audit engagement. In addition, the respondent failed to include and evaluate significant matters affecting the company while performing acceptance procedures. The respondent also did not evaluate whether the opening balances reflected the application of appropriate accounting policies and were consistently applied. The audit report did not state that the financial statements of the prior year were audited by a predecessor auditor, the type of opinion expressed by the predecessor auditor and the date of the predecessor’s audit report. The respondent was sentenced to a fine of R120 000, of which R60 000 has been suspended for three years, on condition that the respondent is not found guilty of improper conduct relating to work done during the period of suspension; no cost order; and publication by the IRBA in general terms. Matter 37 The respondent failed to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence on revenue, accounts receivable and accruals. In addition, sufficient audit evidence was not obtained for controls testing, as sample sizes were insufficient. The respondent was sentenced to a fine of R100 000, of which R50 000 has been suspended for three years, on condition that the respondent is not found guilty of improper conduct relating to work done during the period of suspension; no cost order; and publication by the IRBA in general terms. Matter 38 The respondent failed to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence on shareholder’s loans and going concern. Furthermore, there was non-compliance with International Accounting Standard 8, Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors, and incomplete disclosures in the financial statements. The respondent was sentenced to a fine of R100 000, of which R50 000 has been suspended for three years, on condition that the respondent is not found guilty of improper conduct relating to work done during the period of suspension; no cost order; and publication by the IRBA in general terms. Matter 39 The matter was a referral from the Inspections Committee. Mr Jacques Barradas, the respondent, recorded unadjusted audit differences during the audit that exceeded audit materiality relating to contract revenue, work-in-progress costs, contract receivables and contract payables. The aggregate of the misstatements in relation to the different elements in the annual financial statements was below final materiality; however, the individual line items were materially misstated as they exceeded materiality. As a result, the respondent’s unmodified audit opinion was inappropriate under the circumstances. The respondent was sentenced to a fine of R150 000, of which R75 000 has been suspended for three years, on condition that the respondent is not found guilty of improper conduct relating to work done during the period of suspension; no cost order; and publication by the IRBA of the respondent’s name, the findings of the investigation and the sanction imposed. Matter 40 The matter was a referral from the Inspections Committee. The respondent failed to identify material misstatements in the statement of cash flows. As a result, the respondent’s unmodified audit opinion was inappropriate. In addition, the respondent was responsible for INVESTIGATIONS cont.