Sanction KPMG as a firm

Hilary Joffe (Banking sector could be most at risk, September 21) favours exacting retribution from individual KPMG executives rather than from the company, arguing that the risk of bringing down the partnership poses systemic risk for South African business and large banks in particular.

While I am all in favour of imposing consequences on individual perpetrators and agree that this will act as a substantial deterrent, I also believe that the company needs to be severely sanctioned, even if it is destroyed.

It is at least as guilty as the individuals concerned. Was it just a coincidence that KPMG employed eight ethically and possibly criminally challenged individuals in the most senior executive positions in the firm, or did they seek out those who were prepared to pursue fee maximisation to the exclusion of any other considerations?

Or were all these executives pure of heart when they joined KPMG, only to be quickly turned by the toxic corporate culture that they imbibed?

How does the argument that the firm should be spared the ultimate sanction of collapse differ from the argument that should we remove the mob from the waste management business competition will decline in that market? How does it differ from the argument that large banks are too big to fail? And if that argument is accepted, how do we deal with the moral hazard that will bring us yet another ethically deficient KPMG?

David Lewis

Executive director, Corruption Watch