Deloitte fined for turning back the audit clocks
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.
You might also be interested in
Replies (20)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
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).
Yep. That sounds incredibly lenient for what sounds like a systematic and widespread misrepresentation of the facts.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
These weren't minor "mistakes". They were covering up the fact that the audits weren't complete when the accounts were signed off.
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...
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.
One of the reasons I was never even slightly interested in working for one of the big four. So many stories of shady dealings.
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.
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.
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 ?
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?