13 / 21
I NVEST I GAT I ONS c o n t .
The respondent was sentenced to a fine of R50,000, of which
R50,000 has been suspended on condition that the
respondent issues a letter to all clients of the branch clarifying
the matter, costs order of R5,000 and publication in general
terms.
Matter 12
– The respondent prepared an incorrect B-BBEE
score and status level on behalf of the client in that the relevant
sector codes were not applied by the respondent. The
respondent then issued the B-BBEE verification certificate,
which contained material errors, together with an unmodified
assurance conclusion.
The respondent was sentenced to a fine of R30,000, of which
R15,000 has been suspended for three years on condition that
the respondent is not found guilty of unprofessional conduct
committed during the period of suspension, no costs order and
publication in general terms.
Matter 13
– The respondent prepared an incorrect B-BBEE
score and status level on behalf of two unrelated clients in that
on the one client there were calculation errors on the certificate
and on the other client the respondent did not apply the
appropriate sector codes. The respondent subsequently
issued the B-BBEE verification certificates, both of which
contained material errors, together with unmodified assurance
conclusions thereon.
The respondent was sentenced to a fine of R30,000, of which
R15,000 has been suspended for three years on condition that
the respondent is not found guilty of unprofessional conduct
committed during the period of suspension, no costs order and
publication in general terms.
Matter 14
– With respect to two unrelated clients, the
respondent prepared incorrect B-BBEE scores and status
levels on behalf of those clients in that the calculation of an
element in both instances was incorrect. The respondent then
issued the B-BBEE verification certificates, both of which
contained material errors, together with unmodified assurance
conclusions thereon.
With respect to another client, the respondent prepared an
incorrect B-BBEE score and status level on behalf of a client in
that the relevant sector codes were not applied by the
respondent. The respondent then issued the B-BBEE
financial statements of the trusts. Also, the respondent failed
to respond on a timely basis to communication from the
beneficiaries.
The respondent was sentenced to a fine of R100,000, of which
R80,000 has been suspended for three years on condition that
the respondent is not found guilty of unprofessional conduct
committed during the period of suspension, no costs order and
publication in general terms.
Matter 9
– The respondent failed to prepare audit
documentation that provided a sufficient and appropriate
record to support the auditor's opinion and failed to prepare
evidence that the audit was performed in accordance with
auditing pronouncements. The respondent issued an
unmodified audit opinion in respect of the financial statements
of the client, notwithstanding that there were material
misstatements as a result of incorrect disclosures and/or
omissions and/or instances of non-compliance with IFRS for
SMEs in relation to the financial statements.
The respondent was sentenced to a fine of R150,000, costs
order of R5,000 and publication in general terms.
Matter 10
– The respondent failed to obtain sufficient
appropriate audit evidence relating to a liability and as a result
did not detect the misclassification of this amount and the
resultant misstatement of the group annual financial
statements. The respondent issued an unmodified audit
opinion in circumstances where it was inappropriate to do so.
The respondent was sentenced to a fine of R100,000, of which
R25,000 has been suspended for three years on condition that
the respondent is not found guilty of unprofessional conduct
committed during the period of suspension, costs order of
R5,000 and publication in general terms.
Matter 11
– The clients of the branch believed that the branch
manager was the person responsible for carrying out the audit
and issuing the audit reports. The respondent failed to
properly communicate the identity of the registered auditor to
the clients of the branch. The respondent signed and issued
audit reports on four clients of the branch without setting out
the respondent's full name as part of the signature on the
auditor's report.
1 4
Issue 33 January - March 2016