Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
A man in a suit tries to push back the minute hand on an oversized clock
iStock_zhuweiyi49_AW_clock

Deloitte fined for turning back the audit clocks

by

Ontario regulators have slapped Deloitte with a $1.59m fine after its auditors admitted to adjusting their computer clocks to backdate the sign-off dates of audit working papers.

9th Nov 2023
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

In a statement, CPA Ontario said that between November 2016 and May 2018, a number of Deloitte auditors in Ontario changed the date and time settings on their computer clocks to manually override controls in Deloitte's audit software and backdate audit working paper sign-offs. 

According to the regulator, at least 35 auditors backdated more than 930 audit working papers on at least 39 audit engagements between the two dates, breaching two codes which specifically apply to the conduct of firms.

According to CPA Ontario, the matter first came to light in February 2018, when a whistleblower at the firm raised concerns with senior management about the practice, and Deloitte began an internal investigation. The Big Four firm then self-reported the backdating to the watchdog in September 2019, with a settlement reached last week.

As a result, Deloitte will pay a fine of $900,000 and costs of $695,000 to CPA Ontario for the investigation and prosecution of the case.

The regulator stated that Deloitte failed to have the necessary policies and procedures in place, and failed to take appropriate action to address potential issues of audit quality once it became aware that its practitioners had engaged in backdating audit working papers. During its own investigation, the firm also failed to adequately consider and address the risk of ethical issues arising from deliberate backdating.

"Backdating obscures when and what work was performed and reviewed," said Janet Gillies, executive vice president of regulatory and standards at CPA Ontario. “It creates questions about the accuracy or timeliness of audit documentation and the quality of the audit.”

Lack of communication

A decision document about the case outlines that during the backdating period, Deloitte was using Engagement Management System (EMS) as its audit software system. Prior to 7 November 2016, EMS permitted a user to manually select a sign-off date for an audit working paper. 

In October 2016 following a separate incident where archived audit documentation had been improperly altered, Deloitte issued an audit practice alert to all audit staff indicating that the ability to choose a sign-off date in EMS would be removed in November 2016. After the change, the date a sign-off was physically entered into EMS would be limited, by default, to the date of the user’s computer clock.

Despite identifying that the new restrictions could potentially be bypassed by a user changing their computer clock, Deloitte’s national office decided not to expressly address this in its communications. This was based on the concern that any such message could ‘socialise’ inappropriate conduct if it were made known that clock adjusting to backdate sign-off dates remained possible.

However, according to the document, certain Deloitte audit practitioners identified the opportunity to bypass the new limits and began adjusting the clock on their computers to backdate the sign-off dates of audit working papers while performing assurance engagements for private and public entities.

In February 2018, a firm audit partner raised a concern with senior firm personnel about the practice. The firm took action in early March 2018 by removing the ability to change the date settings on staff computers and issuing an audit practice-wide communication reminding all auditors of the accepted procedures around sign-off. In spite of this, at least one audit partner continued to backdate sign-offs until May 2018.

Investigations and penalties

Deloitte initiated a firm-wide investigation into the backdating in March 2018, ending in the Spring of 2019. The internal investigation concluded that although the auditors’ conduct was contrary to firm guidance and warranted discipline, the backdating was not done with malicious or fraudulent intent but rather to more accurately reflect the date the work was actually performed. 

It also found that the backdating by its auditors was not unethical and those involved were attempting to document when work was actually done and therefore “tried to do the right thing but in the wrong way” – although a range of disciplinary actions were taken against the individuals.

In September 2019, Deloitte reported the backdating practice to CPA Ontario, which began its own investigation, resulting in the penalties outlined above.

While the regulator acknowledged Deloitte’s cooperation in the investigation, the fact that it had self-reported the issue and had undertaken steps to ensure it could not happen again, it also criticised the firm’s investigation.

The regulator cited a lack of documentary evidence, the fact that engagement partners and audit leadership were not informed of the investigation, and that the issue was not specifically identified as an ethics-related matter, and the ethics review team were not involved.

In a statement given to the Toronto Star, a spokesperson from Deloitte wrote: “Deloitte Canada serves its clients with integrity. We work ethically, stand by our credibility, and have worked hard to earn and maintain the trust of clients, regulators, and the public.”

No surprise

“It’s a reflection of the state of the market more than anything,” commented John Toon, technology lead at Beever and Struthers. “Audit teams at many firms operate in a highly pressurised environment where staff are actively encouraged to move from one engagement to another and sign them off as quickly as possible.

“It should be no surprise that these sorts of practices have occurred as many will see it as a relatively low-risk activity. This also reflects badly on the state of the audit software market that the sign-offs could be backdated in this way – a situation that still persists in some cases.”

9 November 2023: This article was amended to add a quote

Replies (20)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Justin Bryant
09th Nov 2023 08:55

That's not even a wrist-slap. They should be doing jail time pour encourager les autres (as they say in certain parts of Canada).

Thanks (5)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By hiu612
09th Nov 2023 11:08

Yep. That sounds incredibly lenient for what sounds like a systematic and widespread misrepresentation of the facts.

Thanks (2)
avatar
By hje
09th Nov 2023 09:29

Another example of maladministration.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By JustAnotherUser
09th Nov 2023 10:01

This is not just a few naughty boys doing naughty things, the layers involved and scale here stink of a culture of fraud.

What also amazes me is the time scales for these things are absurd.... from the whistle-blower to the fines took over 5 years!

$695,000 costs, they're very lucky the ICAEW didn't conduct the investigation as the costs would be in the billions!

Thanks (6)
Replying to JustAnotherUser:
avatar
By flightdeck
09th Nov 2023 10:27

You are right - it suggests a culture of fraud because who would think they need to write a rule along the lines of "you may not fake dates/times".

If your culture is this lax then then no amount of policy wordage is going to catch the endless ways people could 'manipulate' the system if so motivated.

Thanks (2)
Danny Kent
By Viciuno
09th Nov 2023 10:19

As a non-auditor I don't understand the reasoning behind the backdating? What does it achieve?

The cynic in me can only think of one reason - to pretend work had been done when it had in fact not. But I've never worked in audit (or in a firm that does actually audit) so may well other motives at play here?

Thanks (2)
Replying to Viciuno:
avatar
By Roland195
09th Nov 2023 12:01

You don't really need to understand anything about audit & you are entirely right with your reasoning. The powers that be at Big 4 firms agree to unrealistic deadlines and pretend not to know by what means these miracles are then achieved. I'd like to think the firing up the Delorean happens to less critical parts of the audit though.

And then some meddling kid of a whistleblower comes along who doubtless was perfectly happy to go along with the Skynet methods up until they were denied a pay raise, passed over for promotion etc etc.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Roland195:
avatar
By norstar
09th Nov 2023 13:21

Roland195 wrote:

You don't really need to understand anything about audit & you are entirely right with your reasoning. The powers that be at Big 4 firms agree to unrealistic deadlines and pretend not to know by what means these miracles are then achieved.

This was confirmed to me by a friend who worked for one of them back in the day. He openly admitted that they worked to the budget agreed, then upped pencils and fudged the rest to close the audit off.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By bobsto12
09th Nov 2023 10:31

Tried to do the right thing in the wrong way? Ie they manipulated the date they were claiming to be signing something by altering the clock to say the wrong day despite being told not to.
You have to wonder about the culture in a firm where people feel the need to cover up their minor mistakes like this.

Thanks (2)
Replying to bobsto12:
avatar
By GDavidson
09th Nov 2023 12:03

These weren't minor "mistakes". They were covering up the fact that the audits weren't complete when the accounts were signed off.

Thanks (1)
Replying to GDavidson:
John Toon
By John Toon
09th Nov 2023 23:34

GDavidson wrote:

These weren't minor "mistakes". They were covering up the fact that the audits weren't complete when the accounts were signed off.


That's not what the findings of the investigation were, so this is just lazy supposition.

Since I'm quoted above, when these breaches occurred it was rare for audit teams to work "in" their audit software. Most testing is done in Excel etc and uploaded/added to the file when complete, normally with a monotonously boring set of checklists/x-references to apply. I've worked with audit teams in the past that do all the audit work like this, accumulate it and add it back to the file at the end of the week. This brings a whole host of risks - work being lost, files not making it back on the file if staff go off on holiday or sick, people running out of time or forgetting (easy to do when you clock regular 60+ hour weeks) along with not having great access to systems once you've moved onto the next big job.

I'm not familiar with the system in question but the subsequent reviews would then have been in either or both the Excel docs and audit file. It's perfectly feasible that the work was completed and reviewed on time (and the investigation indicates this) but the clocks were wound back to record this on the audit file.

I can guarantee that this type of thing still happens in audit firms. It also happens in tax, accounting, payroll etc - I'm always amazed by those dividend or bonus minutes that are miraculously found in the bottom drawer for the correct tax period on accounts filing day...

Thanks (4)
Replying to johnt27:
avatar
By paul.benny
10th Nov 2023 14:49

Good to have a bit of real world perspective.

To many commenters here rush to see the big firms as fundamentally bad. This sounds as if it *could* have been bad practice for innocent-ish reasons rather than being out-and-out dishonesty.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By listerramjet
09th Nov 2023 10:44

certainly sounds like fraud. And blaming the software provider does not cut it!

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Gary Copland
09th Nov 2023 11:25

One of the reasons I was never even slightly interested in working for one of the big four. So many stories of shady dealings.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Self-Employed and Happy
09th Nov 2023 11:59

The only thing I think in this situation is just how widespread is this attitude? You can be sure if some shady **** is going down somewhere then others in the firm will know about it too, then the practice becomes normalised.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By GDavidson
09th Nov 2023 12:01

The Big 4 are lucky there aren't whistleblowers in all their offices.

Thanks (1)
Replying to GDavidson:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
09th Nov 2023 12:40

The only thing that's usually blown is smoke up the partners' backsides.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By norstar
09th Nov 2023 13:18

When I think of the threats and way in which we have been treated by ACCA monitoring officers in the past for what were ultimately minor criticisms and "failings" (based on their opinion as to how the work should have been performed), this sticks in the throat. I can't help but feel that had this been a smaller firm, we'd have been put in front of a panel and our license revoked. It sounds like fraud to me and how the Ethics committee didn't get involved is beyond me.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Mr J Andrews
09th Nov 2023 14:23

There's a certain fantasy in this saga i.e. the timing - and follow up.
~ Whistleblower - February 2018
~ Internal Deloitte ''Investigation''- March 2018.
~ Report to CPA - September 2019

FINDINGS { of Internal Investigations } :-
# NO malicious or fraudulent intent
# Backdating was done MORE ACCURATELY to reflect the date the work was done
# They tried to do the RIGHT thing in the wrong way !

Is it no wonder that Deloitte's internal investigation was criticised by the Regulator ?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Mr J Andrews:
avatar
By More unearned luck
10th Nov 2023 17:10

But how do we know that the internal investigation was made in March 2018 and not later? The data could have been typed on one of the doctored computers.

Why has it taken four years for this to reach the public domain?

Thanks (0)