LEGAL c o n t .
auditor's report was therefore inappropriate in the
circumstances.
The respondent was sentenced to a fine of R100,000, of which
R25,000 was suspended on conditions, costs of R5,000 and
publication in general terms only.
In
one
matter the complainant was the Law Society of the
Northern Provinces. The respondent issued a qualified
assurance opinion to the law society, on an attorney client's
compliance with the Attorneys Act, 1979, and the Rules of the
Law Society pertaining to trust accounts. The respondent
issued an unqualified opinion on the same client's compliance
pertaining to its trust accounts for the prior year. The law
society conducted a forensic investigation of the attorney
firm's trust accounts, covering various years that included the
prior period over which the respondent had issued an
unqualified opinion to the society. The assurance procedures
for the prior year were lacking in a certain area.
The respondent was sentenced to a fine of R50,000, of which
R25,000 was suspended on conditions, costs of R5,000 and
publication in general terms only.
In
one
mero motu
matter via a referral from a member of
public, the respondent issued a broad-based black economic
empowerment verification certificate which contained
misleading content. The wording on the certificate implied that
assurance may be placed on the certificate while the
respondent had not performed assurance procedures. The
procedures performed were restricted to those of an
exempted micro-enterprise certificate. The criteria applied
also departed, without reasonable explanation, from the
suitable criteria.
The respondent was sentenced to a fine of R10,000, of which
R5,000 was suspended on conditions, with publication in
general terms only.
In
one
matter dealing with two respondents from the same
firm, the complaint was initiated after an enquiry from a
Member of Parliament, which followed after another Member
of Parliament had been found guilty by the Joint Committee on
Ethics & Members' Interests of “benefitting from an improper
or generally corrupt relationship” between that member and
the first respondent's client. Considering the client's relevant
partner, who was sentenced to a fine of R100,000, of
which R25,000 was suspended on conditions. Publication
in both instances was in general terms only.
?
In the
one
matter that consisted of
seven
respondents, the
Inspections Department referred the matter to the Legal
Department after a re-inspection in the Fifth Cycle of
inspections. The respondents' firm continued to be in
contravention of the IRBA Code of Professional Conduct in
respect of independence requirements, and specifically
regarding partners holding trusteeships in trusts forming
part of the ownership structures of various clients.
o The first respondent was sentenced to a fine of R100,000,
of which R50,000 was suspended on conditions, with
publication in general terms only.
o The second respondent was sentenced to a fine of
R20,000, of which R10,000 was suspended on
conditions, with publication in general terms only.
o The third respondent was sentenced to a fine of R20,000,
of which R10,000 was suspended on conditions, with
publication in general terms only.
o The fourth respondent was sentenced to a fine of
R20,000, of which R10,000 was suspended on
conditions, with publication in general terms only.
o The fifth respondent was sentenced to a fine of R20,000,
of which R10,000 was suspended on conditions, with
publication in general terms only. (The fifth respondent
was no longer on the register at the time of sentencing.
Therefore the imposition of the entire sentence is
postponed until such time as the fifth respondent
successfully applies for re-registration with the Board.)
o The sixth respondent was sentenced to a fine of R20,000,
of which R10,000 was suspended on conditions, with
publication in general terms only.
o The seventh respondent was sentenced to a fine of
R100,000, of which R50,000 was suspended on
conditions, with publication in general terms only.
One
of the 10 matters was referred by the JSE. The
respondent's audit client had inadequate disclosures on its
annual financial statements regarding going concern. As a
result, the respondent should have issued a modified audit
opinion, but had instead issued an unmodified opinion with an
emphasis of matter paragraph in the auditor's report.
Alternatively, the annual financial statements should have
described the going concern issue better. The respondent's
1 0
Issue 31 July - September 2015
