Re­view of KPMG au­dit re­ports is nec­es­sary

The New Age (Northern Cape) - - COMMENT -

THE Com­pe­ti­tion Com­mis­sion re­cently re­vealed col­lu­sion among ma­jor banks in the for­eign ex­change mar­ket.

Lately these banks’ au­di­tor, KPMG, al­legedly ma­nip­u­lated au­dit re­ports in favour of Gup­taowned com­pa­nies thereby con­tra­ven­ing the Au­dit­ing Pro­fes­sion Act. I smell a rat. KPMG may have ig­nored risks of ma­te­rial mis­state­ments by in­ten­tional omis­sion.

For­mer US pres­i­dent Grover Cleve­land said: “A man is known by the com­pany he keeps and also by the com­pany from which is kept out.” This hits the nail on its head. The ques­tion is why KPMG ex­ec­u­tives were will­ing en­ablers of such mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tion, know­ing that it would hurt the firm’s rep­u­ta­tion if it was ex­posed?

Crim­i­nal charges must be laid. There’s prima fa­cie ev­i­dence of cor­rup­tion that must be re­ferred to the au­thor­i­ties for in­ves­ti­ga­tion.

It may bring to light other il­le­gal ac­tiv­i­ties of money laun­der­ing and tax eva­sion. These eth­i­cal is­sues ap­pear to be or­ches­trated in ca­hoots with other ac­tors cen­tral in the shenani­gans badly af­fect­ing SARS.

This state of af­fairs de­mands that the In­de­pen­dent Reg­u­la­tory Board of Au­di­tors take ap­pro­pri­ate ac­tion against KPMG re­lat­ing to the false or mis­lead­ing in­for­ma­tion of their fi­nan­cial state­ments.

This must in­clude a re­view of all au­dit re­ports of its clients. Mor­gan Phaahla

Ekurhu­leni

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa

© PressReader. All rights reserved.