| ASA 240 |
Auditing Standard ASA 240
The Auditor's Responsibilities Relating to Fraud in an Audit of a Financial Report
Issued by the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board
| ASA 240 |
Auditing Standard ASA 240
The Auditor's Responsibilities Relating to Fraud in an Audit of a Financial Report
Issued by the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board
Obtaining a Copy of this Auditing Standard
This Auditing Standard is available on the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB) website: www.auasb.gov.au
Contact Details Auditing and Assurance Standards Board Level 7 600 Bourke Street Melbourne Victoria 3000 AUSTRALIA |
Phone: (03) 8080 7400 Fax: (03) 8080 7450 E-mail: enquiries@auasb.gov.au
Postal Address: PO Box 204 Collins Street West Melbourne Victoria 8007 AUSTRALIA |
COPYRIGHT
© Commonwealth of Australia 2009. The text, graphics and layout of this Auditing Standard are protected by Australian copyright law and the comparable law of other countries. Reproduction within Australia in unaltered form (retaining this notice) is permitted for personal and non-commercial use subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgment of the source. Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights for commercial purposes within Australia should be addressed to the Executive Director, Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, PO Box 204, Collins Street West, Melbourne Victoria 8007. Otherwise, no part of the Auditing Standard may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the AUASB except as permitted by law.
ISSN 1833-4393
PREFACE
AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Paragraphs
Application............................... Aus 0.1-Aus 0.2
Operative Date............................. Aus 0.3
Introduction
Scope of this Auditing Standard.................. 1
Characteristics of Fraud........................ 2-3
Responsibility for the Prevention and Detection of Fraud.. 4-8
Effective Date............................. 9
Objectives................................ 10
Definitions................................ 11
Requirements
Professional Scepticism........................ 12-14
Discussion among the Engagement Team............ 15
Risk Assessment Procedures and Related Activities..... 16-24
Identification and Assessment of the Risks of Material Misstatement Due to Fraud 25-27
Responses to the Assessed Risks of Material Misstatement Due to Fraud 28-33
Evaluation of Audit Evidence ................... 34-37
Auditor Unable to Continue the Engagement.......... 38
Written Representations....................... 39
Communications to Management and with Those Charged With Governance 40-42
Communications to Regulatory and Enforcement Authorities 43
Documentation............................. 44-47
Application and Other Explanatory Material
Characteristics of Fraud ....................... A1-A6
Professional Scepticism ....................... A7-A9
Discussion Among the Engagement Team ........... A10-A11
Risk Assessment Procedures and Related Activities..... A12-A27
Identification and Assessment of the Risks of Material Misstatement Due to Fraud A28-A32
Responses to the Assessed Risks of Material Misstatement Due to Fraud A33-A48
Evaluation of Audit Evidence ................... A49-A53
Auditor Unable to Continue the Engagement ......... A54-A57
Written Representations ....................... A58-A59
Communications To Management and With Those Charged With Governance A60-A64
Communications to Regulatory and Enforcement Authorities A65-A67
Conformity with International Standards on Auditing
Appendix 1: Examples of Fraud Risk Factors
Appendix 2: Examples of Possible Audit Procedures to Address the Assessed Risks of Material Misstatement Due to Fraud
Appendix 3: Examples of Circumstances that Indicate the Possibility of Fraud
The Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB) issues Auditing Standard ASA 240 The Auditor's Responsibilities Relating to Fraud in an Audit of a Financial Report pursuant to the requirements of the legislative provisions and the Strategic Direction explained below.
The AUASB is an independent statutory board of the Australian Government under section 227A of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, as amended (ASIC Act). Under section 336 of the Corporations Act 2001, the AUASB may make Auditing Standards for the purposes of the corporations legislation. These Auditing Standards are legislative instruments under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.
Under the Strategic Direction given to the AUASB by the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), the AUASB is required to have regard to any programme initiated by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) for the revision and enhancement of the International Standards on Auditing (ISAs) and to make appropriate consequential amendments to the Australian Auditing Standards. Accordingly, the AUASB has decided to revise and redraft the Australian Auditing Standards using the equivalent redrafted ISAs.
Auditor's Responsibilities Relating to Fraud in an Audit of a Financial Report, issued by the IAASB, .
This Auditing Standard establishes requirements and provides application and other explanatory material regarding the auditor’s responsibilities relating to fraud in an audit of a financial report.
This Auditing Standard:
(a) distinguishes fraud from error and describes the types of fraud relevant to the auditor, that is, misstatements resulting from misappropriation of assets and misstatements resulting from fraudulent financial reporting;
(b) describes the responsibility for the prevention and detection of fraud;
(c) describes the auditor’s responsibility for maintaining an attitude of professional scepticism throughout the audit, considering the potential for management override of controls and recognising the fact that audit procedures that are effective for detecting error may not be effective in detecting fraud;
(d) requires the auditor to:
(i) discuss among the engagement team members how and where the entity’s financial report may be susceptible to material misstatement due to fraud, including how fraud might occur;
(ii) obtain an understanding of the entity and its environment, including the entity’s internal control and obtain information for use in identifying the risks of material misstatement due to fraud at the financial report level and at the assertion level; and
(iii) determine responses to address the assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud;
(e) requires written representations from management relating to fraud;
(f) requires communications to management and with those charged with governance on matters related to fraud; and
(g) establishes documentation requirements.
The Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB) makes this Auditing Standard ASA 240 The Auditor's Responsibilities Relating to Fraud in an Audit of a Financial Report pursuant to section 227B of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 and section 336 of the Corporations Act 2001.
This Auditing Standard is to be read in conjunction with ASA 101 Preamble to Australian Auditing Standards, which sets out the intentions of the AUASB on how the Australian Auditing Standards, operative for financial reporting periods commencing on or after 1 January 2010, are to be understood, interpreted and applied. This Auditing Standard is to be read also in conjunction with ASA 200 Overall Objectives of the Independent Auditor and the Conduct of an Audit in Accordance with Australian Auditing Standards.
Dated: 27 October 2009 M H Kelsall
Chairman - AUASB
Aus 0.1 This Auditing Standard applies to:
(a) an audit of a financial report for a financial year, or an audit of a financial report for a half-year, in accordance with the Corporations Act 2001; and
(b) an audit of a financial report, or a complete set of financial statements, for any other purpose.
Aus 0.2 This Auditing Standard also applies, as appropriate, to an audit of other historical financial information.
Aus 0.3 This Auditing Standard is operative for financial reporting periods commencing on or after 1 January 2010.
2. Misstatements in the financial report can arise from either fraud or error. The distinguishing factor between fraud and error is whether the underlying action that results in the misstatement of the financial report is intentional or unintentional.
3. Although fraud is a broad legal concept, for the purposes of the Australian Auditing Standards, the auditor is concerned with fraud that causes a material misstatement in the financial report. Two types of intentional misstatements are relevant to the auditor – misstatements resulting from fraudulent financial reporting and misstatements resulting from misappropriation of assets. Although the auditor may suspect or, in rare cases, identify the occurrence of fraud, the auditor does not make legal determinations of whether fraud has actually occurred. (Ref: Para. A1-A6)
4. The primary responsibility for the prevention and detection of fraud rests with both those charged with governance of the entity and management. It is important that management, with the oversight of those charged with governance, place a strong emphasis on fraud prevention, which may reduce opportunities for fraud to take place, and fraud deterrence, which could persuade individuals not to commit fraud because of the likelihood of detection and punishment. This involves a commitment to creating a culture of honesty and ethical behaviour which can be reinforced by an active oversight by those charged with governance. Oversight by those charged with governance includes considering the potential for override of controls or other inappropriate influence over the financial reporting process, such as efforts by management to manage earnings in order to influence the perceptions of analysts as to the entity’s performance and profitability.
5. An auditor conducting an audit in accordance with Australian Auditing Standards is responsible for obtaining reasonable assurance that the financial report taken as a whole is free from material misstatement, whether caused by fraud or error. Owing to the inherent limitations of an audit, there is an unavoidable risk that some material misstatements of the financial report may not be detected, even though the audit is properly planned and performed in accordance with Australian Auditing Standards.[3]
6. As described in ASA 200,[4] the potential effects of inherent limitations are particularly significant in the case of misstatement resulting from fraud. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than the risk of not detecting one resulting from error. This is because fraud may involve sophisticated and carefully organised schemes designed to conceal it, such as forgery, deliberate failure to record transactions, or intentional misrepresentations being made to the auditor. Such attempts at concealment may be even more difficult to detect when accompanied by collusion. Collusion may cause the auditor to believe that audit evidence is persuasive when it is, in fact, false. The auditor’s ability to detect a fraud depends on factors such as the skilfulness of the perpetrator, the frequency and extent of manipulation, the degree of collusion involved, the relative size of individual amounts manipulated, and the seniority of those individuals involved. While the auditor may be able to identify potential opportunities for fraud to be perpetrated, it is difficult for the auditor to determine whether misstatements in judgement areas such as accounting estimates are caused by fraud or error.
7. Furthermore, the risk of the auditor not detecting a material misstatement resulting from management fraud is greater than for employee fraud, because management is frequently in a position to directly or indirectly manipulate accounting records, present fraudulent financial information or override control procedures designed to prevent similar frauds by other employees.
8. When obtaining reasonable assurance, the auditor is responsible for maintaining professional scepticism throughout the audit, considering the potential for management override of controls and recognising the fact that audit procedures that are effective for detecting error may not be effective in detecting fraud. The requirements in this Auditing Standard are designed to assist the auditor in identifying and assessing the risks of material misstatement due to fraud and in designing procedures to detect such misstatement.
9. [Deleted by the AUASB. Refer Aus 0.3]
10. The objectives of the auditor are:
(a) To identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial report due to fraud;
(b) To obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence regarding the assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud, through designing and implementing appropriate responses; and
(c) To respond appropriately to fraud or suspected fraud identified during the audit.
11. For purposes of the Australian Auditing Standards, the following terms have the meanings attributed below:
(a) Fraud means an intentional act by one or more individuals among management, those charged with governance, employees, or third parties, involving the use of deception to obtain an unjust or illegal advantage.
(b) Fraud risk factors means events or conditions that indicate an incentive or pressure to commit fraud or provide an opportunity to commit fraud.
12. In accordance with ASA 200, the auditor shall maintain professional scepticism throughout the audit, recognising the possibility that a material misstatement due to fraud could exist, notwithstanding the auditor’s past experience of the honesty and integrity of the entity’s management and those charged with governance. (Ref: Para. A7- A8)
13. Unless the auditor has reason to believe the contrary, the auditor may accept records and documents as genuine. If conditions identified during the audit cause the auditor to believe that a document may not be authentic or that terms in a document have been modified but not disclosed to the auditor, the auditor shall investigate further. (Ref: Para. A9)
14. Where responses to enquiries of management or those charged with governance are inconsistent, the auditor shall investigate the inconsistencies.
15. ASA 315 requires a discussion among the engagement team members and a determination by the engagement partner of which matters are to be communicated to those team members not involved in the discussion[5]. This discussion shall place particular emphasis on how and where the entity’s financial report may be susceptible to material misstatement due to fraud, including how fraud might occur. The discussion shall occur setting aside beliefs that the engagement team members may have that management and those charged with governance are honest and have integrity.
(Ref: Para. A10-A11)
16. When performing risk assessment procedures and related activities to obtain an understanding of the entity and its environment, including the entity’s internal control, required by ASA 315[6], the auditor shall perform the procedures in paragraphs 17-24 of this Auditing Standard to obtain information for use in identifying the risks of material misstatement due to fraud.
17. The auditor shall make enquiries of management regarding:
(a) Management’s assessment of the risk that the financial report may be materially misstated due to fraud, including the nature, extent and frequency of such assessments;
(Ref: Para. A12-A13)
(b) Management’s process for identifying and responding to the risks of fraud in the entity, including any specific risks of fraud that management has identified or that have been brought to its attention, or classes of transactions, account balances, or disclosures for which a risk of fraud is likely to exist; (Ref: Para. A14)
(c) Management’s communication, if any, to those charged with governance regarding its processes for identifying and responding to the risks of fraud in the entity; and
(d) Management’s communication, if any, to employees regarding its views on business practices and ethical behaviour.
18. The auditor shall make enquiries of management, and others within the entity as appropriate, to determine whether they have knowledge of any actual, suspected or alleged fraud affecting the entity.
(Ref: Para. A15-A17)
19. For those entities that have an internal audit function, the auditor shall make enquiries of internal audit to determine whether it has knowledge of any actual, suspected or alleged fraud affecting the entity, and to obtain its views about the risks of fraud. (Ref: Para. A18)
20. Unless all of those charged with governance are involved in managing the entity,[7] the auditor shall obtain an understanding of how those charged with governance exercise oversight of management’s processes for identifying and responding to the risks of fraud in the entity and the internal control that management has established to mitigate these risks. (Ref: Para. A19-A21)
21. Unless all of those charged with governance are involved in managing the entity, the auditor shall make enquiries of those charged with governance to determine whether they have knowledge of any actual, suspected or alleged fraud affecting the entity. These enquiries are made in part to corroborate the responses to the enquiries of management.
22. The auditor shall evaluate whether unusual or unexpected relationships that have been identified in performing analytical procedures, including those related to revenue accounts, may indicate risks of material misstatement due to fraud.
23. The auditor shall consider whether other information obtained by the auditor indicates risks of material misstatement due to fraud.
(Ref: Para. A22)
24. The auditor shall evaluate whether the information obtained from the other risk assessment procedures and related activities performed indicates that one or more fraud risk factors are present. While fraud risk factors may not necessarily indicate the existence of fraud, they have often been present in circumstances where frauds have occurred and therefore may indicate risks of material misstatement due to fraud. (Ref: Para. A23-A27)
25. In accordance with ASA 315, the auditor shall identify and assess the risks of material misstatement due to fraud at the financial report level, and at the assertion level for classes of transactions, account balances and disclosures.[8]
26. When identifying and assessing the risks of material misstatement due to fraud, the auditor shall, based on a presumption that there are risks of fraud in revenue recognition, evaluate which types of revenue, revenue transactions or assertions give rise to such risks. Paragraph 47 of this Auditing Standard specifies the documentation required where the auditor concludes that the presumption is not applicable in the circumstances of the engagement and, accordingly, has not identified revenue recognition as a risk of material misstatement due to fraud. (Ref: Para. A28-A30)
27. The auditor shall treat those assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud as significant risks and accordingly, to the extent not already done so, the auditor shall obtain an understanding of the entity’s related controls, including control activities, relevant to such risks. (Ref: Para. A31-A32)
28. In accordance with ASA 330, the auditor shall determine overall responses to address the assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud at the financial report level.[9] (Ref: Para. A33)
29. In determining overall responses to address the assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud at the financial report level, the auditor shall:
(a) Assign and supervise personnel taking account of the knowledge, skill and ability of the individuals to be given significant engagement responsibilities and the auditor’s assessment of the risks of material misstatement due to fraud for the engagement; (Ref: Para. A34-A35)
(b) Evaluate whether the selection and application of accounting policies by the entity, particularly those related to subjective measurements and complex transactions, may be indicative of fraudulent financial reporting resulting from management’s effort to manage earnings; and
(c) Incorporate an element of unpredictability in the selection of the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures.
(Ref: Para. A36)
30. In accordance with ASA 330, the auditor shall design and perform further audit procedures whose nature, timing and extent are responsive to the assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud at the assertion level.[10] (Ref: Para. A37-A40)
31. Management is in a unique position to perpetrate fraud because of management’s ability to manipulate accounting records and prepare a fraudulent financial report by overriding controls that otherwise appear to be operating effectively. Although the level of risk of management override of controls will vary from entity to entity, the risk is nevertheless present in all entities. Due to the unpredictable way in which such override could occur, it is a risk of material misstatement due to fraud and thus a significant risk.
32. Irrespective of the auditor’s assessment of the risks of management override of controls, the auditor shall design and perform audit procedures to:
(a) Test the appropriateness of journal entries recorded in the general ledger and other adjustments made in the preparation of the financial report. In designing and performing audit procedures for such tests, the auditor shall:
(i) Make enquiries of individuals involved in the financial reporting process about inappropriate or unusual activity relating to the processing of journal entries and other adjustments;
(ii) Select journal entries and other adjustments made at the end of a reporting period; and
(iii) Consider the need to test journal entries and other adjustments throughout the period.
(Ref: Para. A41-A44)
(b) Review accounting estimates for biases and evaluate whether the circumstances producing the bias, if any, represent a risk of material misstatement due to fraud. In performing this review, the auditor shall:
(i) Evaluate whether the judgements and decisions made by management in making the accounting estimates included in the financial report, even if they are individually reasonable, indicate a possible bias on the part of the entity’s management that may represent a risk of material misstatement due to fraud. If so, the auditor shall re-evaluate the accounting estimates taken as a whole; and
(ii) Perform a retrospective review of management judgements and assumptions related to significant accounting estimates reflected in the financial report of the prior year. (Ref: Para. A45-A47)
(c) For significant transactions that are outside the normal course of business for the entity, or that otherwise appear to be unusual given the auditor’s understanding of the entity and its environment and other information obtained during the audit, evaluate whether the business rationale (or the lack thereof) of the transactions suggests that they may have been entered into to engage in fraudulent financial reporting or to conceal misappropriation of assets.
(Ref: Para. A48)
33. The auditor shall determine whether, in order to respond to the identified risks of management override of controls, the auditor needs to perform other audit procedures in addition to those specifically referred to above (that is, where there are specific additional risks of management override that are not covered as part of the procedures performed to address the requirements in paragraph 32 of this Auditing Standard).
35. If the auditor identifies a misstatement, the auditor shall evaluate whether such a misstatement is indicative of fraud. If there is such an indication, the auditor shall evaluate the implications of the misstatement in relation to other aspects of the audit, particularly the reliability of management representations, recognising that an instance of fraud is unlikely to be an isolated occurrence.
(Ref: Para. A51)
36. If the auditor identifies a misstatement, whether material or not, and the auditor has reason to believe that it is or may be the result of fraud and that management (in particular, senior management) is involved, the auditor shall re-evaluate the assessment of the risks of material misstatement due to fraud and its resulting impact on the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures to respond to the assessed risks. The auditor shall also consider whether circumstances or conditions indicate possible collusion involving employees, management or third parties when reconsidering the reliability of evidence previously obtained. (Ref: Para. A52)
37. If the auditor confirms that, or is unable to conclude whether, the financial report is materially misstated as a result of fraud the auditor shall evaluate the implications for the audit. (Ref: Para. A53)
38. If, as a result of a misstatement resulting from fraud or suspected fraud, the auditor encounters exceptional circumstances that bring into question the auditor’s ability to continue performing the audit, the auditor shall:
(a) Determine the professional and legal responsibilities applicable in the circumstances, including whether there is a requirement for the auditor to report to the person or persons who made the audit appointment or, in some cases, to regulatory authorities;
(b) Consider whether it is appropriate to withdraw from the engagement, where withdrawal is possible under applicable law or regulation; and
(c) If the auditor withdraws:
(i) Discuss with the appropriate level of management and those charged with governance the auditor’s withdrawal from the engagement and the reasons for the withdrawal; and
(ii) Determine whether there is a professional or legal requirement to report to the person or persons who made the audit appointment or, in some cases, to regulatory authorities, the auditor’s withdrawal from the engagement and the reasons for the withdrawal. (Ref: Para. A54-A57)
39. The auditor shall obtain written representations from management and, where appropriate, those charged with governance that:
(a) They acknowledge their responsibility for the design, implementation and maintenance of internal control to prevent and detect fraud;
(b) They have disclosed to the auditor the results of management’s assessment of the risk that the financial report may be materially misstated as a result of fraud;
(c) They have disclosed to the auditor their knowledge of fraud or suspected fraud affecting the entity involving:
(i) Management;
(ii) Employees who have significant roles in internal control; or
(iii) Others where the fraud could have a material effect on the financial report; and
(d) They have disclosed to the auditor their knowledge of any allegations of fraud, or suspected fraud, affecting the entity’s financial report communicated by employees, former employees, analysts, regulators or others.
(Ref: Para. A58-A59)
40. If the auditor has identified a fraud or has obtained information that indicates that a fraud may exist, the auditor shall communicate these matters on a timely basis to the appropriate level of management in order to inform those with primary responsibility for the prevention and detection of fraud of matters relevant to their responsibilities. (Ref: Para. A60)
41. Unless all of those charged with governance are involved in managing the entity, if the auditor has identified or suspects fraud involving:
(a) Management;
(b) Employees who have significant roles in internal control; or
(c) Others where the fraud results in a material misstatement in the financial report,
the auditor shall communicate these matters to those charged with governance on a timely basis. If the auditor suspects fraud involving management, the auditor shall communicate these suspicions to those charged with governance and discuss with them the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures necessary to complete the audit. (Ref: Para. Aus A60.1-A63)
42. The auditor shall communicate with those charged with governance any other matters related to fraud that are, in the auditor’s judgement, relevant to their responsibilities. (Ref: Para. A64)
43. If the auditor has identified or suspects a fraud, the auditor shall determine whether there is a responsibility to report the occurrence or suspicion to a party outside the entity. Although the auditor’s professional duty to maintain the confidentiality of client information may preclude such reporting, the auditor’s legal responsibilities may override the duty of confidentiality in some circumstances. (Ref: Para. A65-A67)
44. The auditor shall include the following in the audit documentation[11] of the auditor’s understanding of the entity and its environment and the assessment of the risks of material misstatement required by ASA 315:[12]
(a) The significant decisions reached during the discussion among the engagement team regarding the susceptibility of the entity’s financial report to material misstatement due to fraud; and
(b) The identified and assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud at the financial report level and at the assertion level.
45. The auditor shall include the following in the audit documentation of the auditor’s responses to the assessed risks of material misstatement required by ASA 330:[13]
(a) The overall responses to the assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud at the financial report level and the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures, and the linkage of those procedures with the assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud at the assertion level; and
(b) The results of the audit procedures, including those designed to address the risk of management override of controls.
46. The auditor shall include in the audit documentation communications about fraud made to management, those charged with governance, regulators and others.
47. If the auditor has concluded that the presumption that there is a risk of material misstatement due to fraud related to revenue recognition is not applicable in the circumstances of the engagement, the auditor shall include in the audit documentation the reasons for that conclusion.
* * *
A1. Fraud, whether fraudulent financial reporting or misappropriation of assets, involves incentive or pressure to commit fraud, a perceived opportunity to do so and some rationalisation of the act. For example:
A2. Fraudulent financial reporting involves intentional misstatements including omissions of amounts or disclosures in the financial report to deceive financial report users. It can be caused by the efforts of management to manage earnings in order to deceive financial report users by influencing their perceptions as to the entity’s performance and profitability. Such earnings management may start out with small actions or inappropriate adjustment of assumptions and changes in judgements by management. Pressures and incentives may lead these actions to increase to the extent that they result in fraudulent financial reporting. Such a situation could occur when, due to pressures to meet market expectations or a desire to maximise compensation based on performance, management intentionally takes positions that lead to fraudulent financial reporting by materially misstating the financial report. In some entities, management may be motivated to reduce earnings by a material amount to minimise tax or to inflate earnings to secure bank financing.
A3. Fraudulent financial reporting may be accomplished by the following:
A4. Fraudulent financial reporting often involves management override of controls that otherwise may appear to be operating effectively. Fraud can be committed by management overriding controls using such techniques as:
A5. Misappropriation of assets involves the theft of an entity’s assets and is often perpetrated by employees in relatively small and immaterial amounts. However, it can also involve management who are usually more able to disguise or conceal misappropriations in ways that are difficult to detect. Misappropriation of assets can be accomplished in a variety of ways including:
A6. The public sector auditor’s responsibilities relating to fraud may be a result of law, regulation or other authority, applicable to public sector entities or separately covered by the auditor’s mandate. Consequently, the public sector auditor’s responsibilities may not be limited to consideration of risks of material misstatement of the financial report, but may also include a broader responsibility to consider risks of fraud.
A7. Maintaining professional scepticism requires an ongoing questioning of whether the information and audit evidence obtained suggests that a material misstatement due to fraud may exist. It includes considering the reliability of the information to be used as audit evidence and the controls over its preparation and maintenance where relevant. Due to the characteristics of fraud, the auditor’s professional scepticism is particularly important when considering the risks of material misstatement due to fraud.
A8. Although the auditor cannot be expected to disregard past experience of the honesty and integrity of the entity’s management and those charged with governance, the auditor’s professional scepticism is particularly important in considering the risks of material misstatement due to fraud because there may have been changes in circumstances.
A9. An audit performed in accordance with Australian Auditing Standards rarely involves the authentication of documents, nor is the auditor trained as or expected to be an expert in such authentication.[14] However, when the auditor identifies conditions that cause the auditor to believe that a document may not be authentic or that terms in a document have been modified but not disclosed to the auditor, possible procedures to investigate further may include:
A10. Discussing the susceptibility of the entity’s financial report to material misstatement due to fraud with the engagement team:
A11. The discussion may include such matters as:
Management’s Assessment of the Risk of Material Misstatement Due to Fraud (Ref: Para. 17(a))
A12. Management accepts responsibility for the entity’s internal control and for the preparation of the entity’s financial report. Accordingly, it is appropriate for the auditor to make enquiries of management regarding management’s own assessment of the risk of fraud and the controls in place to prevent and detect it. The nature, extent and frequency of management’s assessment of such risk and controls may vary from entity to entity. In some entities, management may make detailed assessments on an annual basis or as part of continuous monitoring. In other entities, management’s assessment may be less structured and less frequent. The nature, extent and frequency of management’s assessment are relevant to the auditor’s understanding of the entity’s control environment. For example, the fact that management has not made an assessment of the risk of fraud may in some circumstances be indicative of the lack of importance that management places on internal control.
Considerations specific to smaller entities
A13. In some entities, particularly smaller entities, the focus of management’s assessment may be on the risks of employee fraud or misappropriation of assets.
Management’s Process for Identifying and Responding to the Risks of Fraud (Ref: Para. 17(b))
A14. In the case of entities with multiple locations, management’s processes may include different levels of monitoring of operating locations, or business segments. Management may also have identified particular operating locations or business segments for which a risk of fraud may be more likely to exist.
A15. The auditor’s enquiries of management may provide useful information concerning the risks of material misstatements in the financial report resulting from employee fraud. However, such enquiries are unlikely to provide useful information regarding the risks of material misstatement in the financial report resulting from management fraud. Making enquiries of others within the entity may provide individuals with an opportunity to convey information to the auditor that may not otherwise be communicated.
A16. Examples of others within the entity to whom the auditor may direct enquiries about the existence or suspicion of fraud include:
A17. Management is often in the best position to perpetrate fraud. Accordingly, when evaluating management’s responses to enquiries with an attitude of professional scepticism, the auditor may judge it necessary to corroborate responses to enquiries with other information.
A18. ASA 315 and ASA 610 establish requirements and provide guidance in audits of those entities that have an internal audit function.[15] In carrying out the requirements of those Auditing Standards in the context of fraud, the auditor may enquire about specific internal audit activities including, for example:
A19. Those charged with governance of an entity oversee the entity’s systems for monitoring risk, financial control and compliance with the law. In many circumstances, corporate governance practices are well developed and those charged with governance play an active role in oversight of the entity’s assessment of the risks of fraud and of the relevant internal control. Since the responsibilities of those charged with governance and management may vary by entity and by the circumstances, it is important that the auditor understands their respective responsibilities to enable the auditor to obtain an understanding of the oversight exercised by the appropriate individuals.[16]
A20. An understanding of the oversight exercised by those charged with governance may provide insights regarding the susceptibility of the entity to management fraud, the adequacy of internal control over risks of fraud, and the competency and integrity of management. The auditor may obtain this understanding in a number of ways, such as by attending meetings where such discussions take place, reading the minutes from such meetings or making enquiries of those charged with governance.
Considerations Specific to Smaller Entities
A21. In some cases, all of those charged with governance are involved in managing the entity. This may be the case in a small entity where a single owner manages the entity and no one else has a governance role. In these cases, there is ordinarily no action on the part of the auditor because there is no oversight separate from management.
A22. In addition to information obtained from applying analytical procedures, other information obtained about the entity and its environment may be helpful in identifying the risks of material misstatement due to fraud. The discussion among team members may provide information that is helpful in identifying such risks. In addition, information obtained from the auditor’s client acceptance and retention processes, and experience gained on other engagements performed for the entity, for example engagements to review interim financial information, may be relevant in the identification of the risks of material misstatement due to fraud.
A23. The fact that fraud is usually concealed can make it very difficult to detect. Nevertheless, the auditor may identify events or conditions that indicate an incentive or pressure to commit fraud or provide an opportunity to commit fraud (fraud risk factors). For example:
A24. Fraud risk factors cannot easily be ranked in order of importance. The significance of fraud risk factors varies widely. Some of these factors will be present in entities where the specific conditions do not present risks of material misstatement. Accordingly, the determination of whether a fraud risk factor is present and whether it is to be considered in assessing the risks of material misstatement of the financial report due to fraud requires the exercise of professional judgement.
A25. Examples of fraud risk factors related to fraudulent financial reporting and misappropriation of assets are presented in Appendix 1. These illustrative risk factors are classified based on the three conditions that are generally present when fraud exists:
Risk factors reflective of an attitude that permits rationalisation of the fraudulent action may not be susceptible to observation by the auditor. Nevertheless, the auditor may become aware of the existence of such information. Although the fraud risk factors described in Appendix 1 cover a broad range of situations that may be faced by auditors, they are only examples and other risk factors may exist.
A26. The size, complexity, and ownership characteristics of the entity have a significant influence on the consideration of relevant fraud risk factors. For example, in the case of a large entity, there may be factors that generally constrain improper conduct by management, such as:
Furthermore, fraud risk factors considered at a business segment operating level may provide different insights when compared with those obtained when considered at an entity-wide level.
Considerations Specific to Smaller Entities
A27. In the case of a small entity, some or all of these considerations may be inapplicable or less relevant. For example, a smaller entity may not have a written code of conduct but, instead, may have developed a culture that emphasises the importance of integrity and ethical behaviour through oral communication and by management example. Domination of management by a single individual in a small entity does not generally, in and of itself, indicate a failure by management to display and communicate an appropriate attitude regarding internal control and the financial reporting process. In some entities, the need for management authorisation can compensate for otherwise deficient controls and reduce the risk of employee fraud. However, domination of management by a single individual can be a potential deficiency in internal control since there is an opportunity for management override of controls.
A28. Material misstatement due to fraudulent financial reporting relating to revenue recognition often results from an overstatement of revenues through, for example, premature revenue recognition or recording fictitious revenues. It may result also from an understatement of revenues through, for example, improperly shifting revenues to a later period.
A29. The risks of fraud in revenue recognition may be greater in some entities than others. For example, there may be pressures or incentives on management to commit fraudulent financial reporting through inappropriate revenue recognition in the case of listed entities when, for example, performance is measured in terms of year-over-year revenue growth or profit. Similarly, for example, there may be greater risks of fraud in revenue recognition in the case of entities that generate a substantial portion of revenues through cash sales.
A30. The presumption that there are risks of fraud in revenue recognition may be rebutted. For example, the auditor may conclude that there is no risk of material misstatement due to fraud relating to revenue recognition in the case where a there is a single type of simple revenue transaction, for example, leasehold revenue from a single unit rental property.
A31. Management may make judgements on the nature and extent of the controls it chooses to implement, and the nature and extent of the risks it chooses to assume.[17] In determining which controls to implement to prevent and detect fraud, management considers the risks that the financial report may be materially misstated as a result of fraud. As part of this consideration, management may conclude that it is not cost effective to implement and maintain a particular control in relation to the reduction in the risks of material misstatement due to fraud to be achieved.
A32. It is therefore important for the auditor to obtain an understanding of the controls that management has designed, implemented and maintained to prevent and detect fraud. In doing so, the auditor may learn, for example, that management has consciously chosen to accept the risks associated with a lack of segregation of duties. Information from obtaining this understanding may also be useful in identifying fraud risks factors that may affect the auditor’s assessment of the risks that the financial report may contain material misstatement due to fraud.
A33. Determining overall responses to address the assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud generally includes the consideration of how the overall conduct of the audit can reflect increased professional scepticism, for example, through:
It also involves more general considerations apart from the specific procedures otherwise planned; these considerations include the matters listed in paragraph 29, which are discussed below.
Assignment and Supervision of Personnel (Ref: Para. 29(a))
A34. The auditor may respond to identified risks of material misstatement due to fraud by, for example, assigning additional individuals with specialised skill and knowledge, such as forensic and IT experts, or by assigning more experienced individuals to the engagement.
A35. The extent of supervision reflects the auditor’s assessment of risks of material misstatement due to fraud and the competencies of the engagement team members performing the work.
Unpredictability in the Selection of Audit Procedures (Ref: Para. 29(c))
A36. Incorporating an element of unpredictability in the selection of the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures to be performed is important as individuals within the entity who are familiar with the audit procedures normally performed on engagements may be more able to conceal fraudulent financial reporting. This can be achieved by, for example:
A37. The auditor’s responses to address the assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud at the assertion level may include changing the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures in the following ways:
○ Physical observation or inspection of certain assets may become more important or the auditor may choose to use computer-assisted audit techniques to gather more evidence about data contained in significant accounts or electronic transaction files.
○ The auditor may design procedures to obtain additional corroborative information. For example, if the auditor identifies that management is under pressure to meet earnings expectations, there may be a related risk that management is inflating sales by entering into sales agreements that include terms that preclude revenue recognition or by invoicing sales before delivery. In these circumstances, the auditor may, for example, design external confirmations not only to confirm outstanding amounts, but also to confirm the details of the sales agreements, including date, any rights of return and delivery terms. In addition, the auditor might find it effective to supplement such external confirmations with enquiries of non-financial personnel in the entity regarding any changes in sales agreements and delivery terms.
A38. If the auditor identifies a risk of material misstatement due to fraud that affects inventory quantities, examining the entity’s inventory records may help to identify locations or items that require specific attention during or after the physical inventory count. Such a review may lead to a decision to observe inventory counts at certain locations on an unannounced basis or to conduct inventory counts at all locations on the same date.
A39. The auditor may identify a risk of material misstatement due to fraud affecting a number of accounts and assertions. These may include asset valuation, estimates relating to specific transactions (such as acquisitions, restructurings, or disposals of a segment of the business), and other significant accrued liabilities (such as pension or superannuation and other post-employment benefit obligations, or environmental remediation liabilities). The risk may also relate to significant changes in assumptions relating to recurring estimates. Information gathered through obtaining an understanding of the entity and its environment may assist the auditor in evaluating the reasonableness of such management estimates and underlying judgements and assumptions. A retrospective review of similar management judgements and assumptions applied in prior periods may also provide insight about the reasonableness of judgements and assumptions supporting management estimates.
A40. Examples of possible audit procedures to address the assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud, including those that illustrate the incorporation of an element of unpredictability, are presented in Appendix 2. The appendix includes examples of responses to the auditor’s assessment of the risks of material misstatement resulting from both fraudulent financial reporting, including fraudulent financial reporting resulting from revenue recognition, and misappropriation of assets.
Journal Entries and Other Adjustments (Ref: Para. 32(a))
A41. Material misstatement of the financial report due to fraud often involves the manipulation of the financial reporting process by recording inappropriate or unauthorised journal entries. This may occur throughout the year or at period end, or by management making adjustments to amounts reported in the financial report that are not reflected in journal entries, such as through consolidating adjustments and reclassifications.
A42. Further, the auditor’s consideration of the risks of material misstatement associated with inappropriate override of controls over journal entries is important since automated processes and controls may reduce the risk of inadvertent error but do not overcome the risk that individuals may inappropriately override such automated processes, for example, by changing the amounts being automatically passed to the general ledger or to the financial reporting system. Furthermore, where IT is used to transfer information automatically, there may be little or no visible evidence of such intervention in the information systems.
A43. When identifying and selecting journal entries and other adjustments for testing and determining the appropriate method of examining the underlying support for the items selected, the following matters are of relevance:
A44. The auditor uses professional judgement in determining the nature, timing and extent of testing of journal entries and other adjustments. However, because fraudulent journal entries and other adjustments are often made at the end of a reporting period, paragraph 32(a)(ii) requires the auditor to select the journal entries and other adjustments made at that time. Further, because material misstatements in the financial report due to fraud can occur throughout the period and may involve extensive efforts to conceal how the fraud is accomplished, paragraph 32(a)(iii) requires the auditor to consider whether there is also a need to test journal entries and other adjustments throughout the period.
Accounting Estimates (Ref: Para. 32(b))
A45. The preparation of the financial report requires management to make a number of judgements or assumptions that affect significant accounting estimates and to monitor the reasonableness of such estimates on an ongoing basis. Fraudulent financial reporting is often accomplished through intentional misstatement of accounting estimates. This may be achieved by, for example, understating or overstating all provisions or reserves in the same fashion so as to be designed either to smooth earnings over two or more accounting periods, or to achieve a designated earnings level in order to deceive financial statement users by influencing their perceptions as to the entity’s performance and profitability.
A46. The purpose of performing a retrospective review of management judgements and assumptions related to significant accounting estimates reflected in the financial report of the prior year is to determine whether there is an indication of a possible bias on the part of management. It is not intended to call into question the auditor’s professional judgements made in the prior year that were based on information available at the time.
A47. A retrospective review is also required by ASA 540.[18] That review is conducted as a risk assessment procedure to obtain information regarding the effectiveness of management’s prior period estimation process, audit evidence about the outcome, or where applicable, the subsequent re-estimation of prior period accounting estimates that is pertinent to making current period accounting estimates, and audit evidence of matters, such as estimation uncertainty, that may be required to be disclosed in the financial report. As a practical matter, the auditor’s review of management judgements and assumptions for biases that could represent a risk of material misstatement due to fraud in accordance with this Auditing Standard may be carried out in conjunction with the review required by ASA 540.
Business Rationale for Significant Transactions (Ref: Para. 32(c))
A48. Indicators that may suggest that significant transactions that are outside the normal course of business for the entity, or that otherwise appear to be unusual, may have been entered into to engage in fraudulent financial reporting or to conceal misappropriation of assets include:
A49. ASA 330 requires the auditor, based on the audit procedures performed and the audit evidence obtained, to evaluate whether the assessments of the risks of material misstatement at the assertion level remain appropriate.[19] This evaluation is primarily a qualitative matter based on the auditor’s judgement. Such an evaluation may provide further insight about the risks of material misstatement due to fraud and whether there is a need to perform additional or different audit procedures. Appendix 3 contains examples of circumstances that may indicate the possibility of fraud.
A50. Determining which particular trends and relationships may indicate a risk of material misstatement due to fraud requires professional judgement. Unusual relationships involving year-end revenue and income are particularly relevant. These might include, for example: uncharacteristically large amounts of income being reported in the last few weeks of the reporting period or unusual transactions; or income that is inconsistent with trends in cash flow from operations.
A51. Since fraud involves incentive or pressure to commit fraud, a perceived opportunity to do so or some rationalisation of the act, an instance of fraud is unlikely to be an isolated occurrence. Accordingly, misstatements, such as numerous misstatements at a specific location even though the cumulative effect is not material, may be indicative of a risk of material misstatement due to fraud.
A52. The implications of identified fraud depend on the circumstances. For example, an otherwise insignificant fraud may be significant if it involves senior management. In such circumstances, the reliability of evidence previously obtained may be called into question, since there may be doubts about the completeness and truthfulness of representations made and about the genuineness of accounting records and documentation. There may also be a possibility of collusion involving employees, management or third parties.
A53. ASA 450[20] and ASA 700[21] establish requirements and provide guidance on the evaluation and disposition of misstatements and the effect on the auditor’s opinion in the auditor’s report.
A54. Examples of exceptional circumstances that may arise and that may bring into question the auditor’s ability to continue performing the audit include:
A55. Because of the variety of the circumstances that may arise, it is not possible to describe definitively when withdrawal from an engagement is appropriate. Factors that affect the auditor’s conclusion include the implications of the involvement of a member of management or of those charged with governance (which may affect the reliability of management representations) and the effects on the auditor of a continuing association with the entity.
A56. The auditor has professional and legal responsibilities in such circumstances and these responsibilities may vary according to circumstances. In some circumstances, for example, the auditor may be entitled to, or required to, make a statement or report to the person or persons who made the audit appointment or, in some cases, to regulatory authorities. Given the exceptional nature of the circumstances and the need to consider the legal requirements, the auditor may consider it appropriate to seek legal advice when deciding whether to withdraw from an engagement and in determining an appropriate course of action, including the possibility of reporting to shareholders, regulators or others.[22]
Aus A56.1 For an audit engagement under the Corporations Act 2001 (the Act), the possibility of withdrawing from the engagement or resigning from the appointment as an auditor can only be made in accordance with the provisions of the Act, including in certain circumstances, obtaining consent to resign from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).
A57. In many cases in the public sector, the option of withdrawing from the engagement may not be available to the auditor due to the nature of the mandate or public interest considerations.
A58. ASA 580[23] establishes requirements and provides guidance on obtaining appropriate representations from management and, where appropriate, those charged with governance in the audit. In addition to acknowledging that they have fulfilled their responsibility for the preparation of the financial report, it is important that, irrespective of the size of the entity, management and, where appropriate, those charged with governance acknowledge their responsibility for internal control designed, implemented and maintained to prevent and detect fraud.
A59. Because of the nature of fraud and the difficulties encountered by auditors in detecting material misstatements in the financial report resulting from fraud, it is important that the auditor obtain a written representation from management and, where appropriate, those charged with governance confirming that they have disclosed to the auditor:
(a) The results of management’s assessment of the risk that the financial report may be materially misstated as a result of fraud; and
(b) Their knowledge of actual, suspected or alleged fraud affecting the entity.
A60. When the auditor has obtained evidence that fraud exists or may exist, it is important that the matter be brought to the attention of the appropriate level of management as soon as practicable. This is so even if the matter might be considered inconsequential (for example, a minor defalcation by an employee at a low level in the entity’s organisation). The determination of which level of management is the appropriate one is a matter of professional judgement and is affected by such factors as the likelihood of collusion and the nature and magnitude of the suspected fraud. Ordinarily, the appropriate level of management is at least one level above the persons who appear to be involved with the suspected fraud.
Aus A60.1 Legislation may require the auditor or a member of the audit team to maintain the confidentiality of information disclosed to the auditor, or a member of the audit team, by a person regarding contraventions or possible contraventions of the law. In such circumstances, the auditor or a member of the audit team may be prevented from communicating that information to management or those charged with governance in order to protect the identity of the person who has disclosed confidential information that alleges a breach of the law. In such circumstances, the auditor may consider obtaining legal advice to assist in determining the appropriate course of action and may need to consider the implications for the audit engagement.
A61. The auditor’s communication with those charged with governance may be made orally or in writing. ASA 260 identifies factors the auditor considers in determining whether to communicate orally or in writing.[24] Due to the nature and sensitivity of fraud involving senior management, or fraud that results in a material misstatement in the financial report, the auditor reports such matters on a timely basis and may consider it necessary to also report such matters in writing.
A62. In some cases, the auditor may consider it appropriate to communicate with those charged with governance when the auditor becomes aware of fraud involving employees other than management that does not result in a material misstatement. Similarly, those charged with governance may wish to be informed of such circumstances. The communication process is assisted if the auditor and those charged with governance agree at an early stage in the audit about the nature and extent of the auditor’s communications in this regard.
A63. In the exceptional circumstances where the auditor has doubts about the integrity or honesty of management or those charged with governance, the auditor may consider it appropriate to obtain legal advice to assist in determining the appropriate course of action.
Other Matters Related to Fraud (Ref: Para. 42)
A64. Other matters related to fraud to be discussed with those charged with governance of the entity may include, for example:
A65. The auditor’s professional duty to maintain the confidentiality of client information may preclude reporting fraud to a party outside the client entity. However, the auditor’s legal responsibilities vary and, in certain circumstances, the duty of confidentiality may be overridden by statute, the law or courts of law. In some circumstances, the auditor of a financial institution may have a statutory duty to report the occurrence of fraud to supervisory authorities. Also, in some circumstances the auditor may have a duty to report misstatements to authorities in those cases where management and those charged with governance fail to take corrective action.
Aus A65.1 An auditor is required by the Act to notify the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) if the auditor is aware of certain circumstances.[*]
A66. The auditor may consider it appropriate to obtain legal advice to determine the appropriate course of action in the circumstances, the purpose of which is to ascertain the steps necessary in considering the public interest aspects of identified fraud.
A67. In the public sector, requirements for reporting fraud, whether or not discovered through the audit process, may be subject to specific provisions of the audit mandate or related law, regulation or other authority.
This Auditing Standard conforms with International Standard on Auditing ISA 240 The Auditor’s Responsibilities Relating to Fraud in an Audit of Financial Statements, issued by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB), an independent standard-setting board of the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC).
Paragraphs that have been added to this Auditing Standard (and do not appear in the text of the equivalent ISA) are identified with the prefix “Aus”.
Compliance with this Auditing Standard enables compliance with ISA 240.
(Ref: Para.A25)
The fraud risk factors identified in this Appendix are examples of such factors that may be faced by auditors in a broad range of situations. Separately presented are examples relating to the two types of fraud relevant to the auditor’s consideration—that is, fraudulent financial reporting and misappropriation of assets. For each of these types of fraud, the risk factors are further classified based on the three conditions generally present when material misstatements due to fraud occur: (a) incentives/pressures, (b) opportunities, and (c) attitudes/rationalisations. Although the risk factors cover a broad range of situations, they are only examples and, accordingly, the auditor may identify additional or different risk factors. Not all of these examples are relevant in all circumstances, and some may be of greater or lesser significance in entities of different size or with different ownership characteristics or circumstances. Also, the order of the examples of risk factors provided is not intended to reflect their relative importance or frequency of occurrence.
The following are examples of risk factors relating to misstatements arising from fraudulent financial reporting.
Financial stability or profitability is threatened by economic, industry, or entity operating conditions, such as (or as indicated by):
Excessive pressure exists for management to meet the requirements or expectations of third parties due to the following:
Information available indicates that the personal financial situation of management or those charged with governance is threatened by the entity’s financial performance arising from the following:
There is excessive pressure on management or operating personnel to meet financial targets established by those charged with governance, including sales or profitability incentive goals.
The nature of the industry or the entity’s operations provides opportunities to engage in fraudulent financial reporting that can arise from the following:
The monitoring of management is not effective as a result of the following:
There is a complex or unstable organisational structure, as evidenced by the following:
Internal control components are deficient as a result of the following:
○ Frequent disputes with the current or predecessor auditor on accounting, auditing, or reporting matters.
○ Unreasonable demands on the auditor, such as unrealistic time constraints regarding the completion of the audit or the issuance of the auditor’s report.
○ Restrictions on the auditor that inappropriately limit access to people or information or the ability to communicate effectively with those charged with governance.
○ Domineering management behaviour in dealing with the auditor, especially involving attempts to influence the scope of the auditor’s work or the selection or continuance of personnel assigned to or consulted on the audit engagement.
Risk factors that relate to misstatements arising from misappropriation of assets are also classified according to the three conditions generally present when fraud exists: incentives/pressures, opportunities, and attitudes/rationalisation. Some of the risk factors related to misstatements arising from fraudulent financial reporting also may be present when misstatements arising from misappropriation of assets occur. For example, ineffective monitoring of management and other deficiencies in internal control may be present when misstatements due to either fraudulent financial reporting or misappropriation of assets exist. The following are examples of risk factors related to misstatements arising from misappropriation of assets.
Personal financial obligations may create pressure on management or employees with access to cash or other assets susceptible to theft to misappropriate those assets.
Adverse relationships between the entity and employees with access to cash or other assets susceptible to theft may motivate those employees to misappropriate those assets. For example, adverse relationships may be created by the following:
Certain characteristics or circumstances may increase the susceptibility of assets to misappropriation. For example, opportunities to misappropriate assets increase when there are the following:
Inadequate internal control over assets may increase the susceptibility of misappropriation of those assets. For example, misappropriation of assets may occur because there is the following:
(Ref: Para.A40)
The following are examples of possible audit procedures to address the assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud resulting from both fraudulent financial reporting and misappropriation of assets. Although these procedures cover a broad range of situations, they are only examples and, accordingly they may not be the most appropriate nor necessary in each circumstance. Also the order of the procedures provided is not intended to reflect their relative importance.
Specific responses to the auditor’s assessment of the risks of material misstatement due to fraud will vary depending upon the types or combinations of fraud risk factors or conditions identified, and the classes of transactions, account balances, disclosures and assertions they may affect.
The following are specific examples of responses:
Examples of responses to the auditor’s assessment of the risks of material misstatement due to fraudulent financial reporting are as follows:
Differing circumstances would necessarily dictate different responses. Ordinarily, the audit response to an assessed risk of material misstatement due to fraud relating to misappropriation of assets will be directed toward certain account balances and classes of transactions. Although some of the audit responses noted in the two categories above may apply in such circumstances, the scope of the work is to be linked to the specific information about the misappropriation risk that has been identified.
Examples of responses to the auditor’s assessment of the risk of material misstatements due to misappropriation of assets are as follows:
(Ref: Para.A49)
The following are examples of circumstances that may indicate the possibility that the financial report may contain a material misstatement resulting from fraud.
Discrepancies in the accounting records, including:
Conflicting or missing evidence, including:
Problematic or unusual relationships between the auditor and management, including:
Other
[1] See ASA 315 Identifying and Assessing the Risks of Material Misstatement through Understanding the Entity and Its Environment.
[2] See ASA 330 The Auditor’s Responses to Assessed Risks.
[3] See ASA 200 Overall Objectives of the Independent Auditor and the Conduct of an Audit in Accordance with Australian Auditing Standards, paragraph A51.
[4] See ASA 200, paragraph A51.
[5] See ASA 315, paragraph 10.
[6] See ASA 315, paragraphs 5-24.
[7] See ASA 260 Communication with Those Charged with Governance, paragraph 13.
[8] See ASA 315, paragraph 25.
[9] See ASA 330, paragraph 5.
[10] See ASA 330, paragraph 6.
[11] See ASA 230 Audit Documentation, paragraphs 8-11 and paragraph A6.
[12] See ASA 315, paragraph 32.
[13] See ASA 330, paragraph 28.
[14] See ASA 200, paragraph A47.
[15] See ASA 315, paragraph 23 and ASA 610 Using the Work of Internal Auditors.
[16] See ASA 260, paragraphs A1-A8, that discuss with whom the auditor communicates when the entity’s governance structure is not well defined.
[17] See ASA 315, paragraph A48.
[18] See ASA 540 Auditing Accounting Estimates, Including Fair Value Accounting Estimates, and Related Disclosures, paragraph 9.
[19] See ASA 330, paragraph 25.
[20] See ASA 450 Evaluation of Misstatements Identified during the Audit.
[21] See ASA 700 Forming an Opinion and Reporting on a Financial Report.
[22] Relevant ethical requirements may provide guidance on communications with a proposed successor auditor. See ASA 102 Compliance with Ethical Requirements when Performing Audits, Reviews and Other Assurance Engagements.
[23] See ASA 580 Written Representations.
See, for example, the Corporations Act 2001, Part 9.4AAA Protection for Whistleblowers.
[24] See ASA 260, paragraph A38.
[*] See ASIC Regulatory Guide 34 Auditor’s obligations: reporting to ASIC
(December 2007), that provides guidance to help auditors comply with their obligations, under sections 311, 601HG and 990K of the Act, to report contraventions and suspected contraventions of the Act to ASIC.
[25] Management incentive plans may be contingent upon achieving targets relating only to certain accounts or selected activities of the entity, even though the related accounts or activities may not be material to the entity as a whole.