Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  8 / 18 Next Page
Show Menu
Previous Page 8 / 18 Next Page
Page Background



The Disciplinary Committee sat four times during the period to hear

three separate matters. One of these was a new matter, while the

remaining three were part-heard matters that had commenced


All three part-heard cases have not yet been finalised and are



Reportable Irregularities (RIs) for the quarter April to June 2018:

(Note that RIs are reported on quarterly in arrears):

114 second reports were received, of which:

RIs were continuing


RIs were not continuing


RIs did not exist


Of the 57 continuing RIs received, the top six types of RIs most

frequently reported, categorised by nature, were:

(Note that in many cases a second report received would identify

more than one RI)

Unlawful Act or Ommission

Reporting Frequency Regulator(s) Informed


Tax and VAT-related contraventions (e.g. non-submission of tax

returns, failure to register for tax, non-payment of PAYE, etc.).


The South African Revenue Service



Financial statements not prepared/not approved within the

alloted timeframe.


SARS, the Financial Sector Conduct

Authority (FSCA) and the Companies and

Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC).


Various Companies Act Contraventions, e.g. reckless trading,

breach of directors’ fiduciary duties, irregular financial assistance

to directors, AGM-related irregularities, etc.




Contravention of the Pension Funds Act, e.g. contributions not

paid over to provident funds.




Suspected fraud and/or theft, and contravention of the

Prevention and Combatting of Corrupt Activities Act (PRECCA).


The Directorate for Priority Crime

Investigation, the Financial Intelligence

Centre (FIC), etc.


Other (e.g. contraventions of the Housing Development

Schemes for Retired Persons Act, the Johannesburg Stock

Exchange Listing Requirements, the Competition Act, etc.).


The Community Schemes Ombud

Service, the Department of Trade and

Industry, the Johannesburg Stock

Exchange, the Competition Commission

of South Africa, etc.

Reporting of Persons and/or Entities Suspected

of Non-Compliance with Laws and Regulations


The IRBA has received a number of enquiries from registered

auditors on whether any suspected NOCLARs that are identified

during audits should be reported to the IRBA – and if so, whether

any such reporting should be done outside the current reporting

mechanism available for RIs. Taking into account the particular set

of facts that are present in any given scenario, it is unlikely that the

IRBA will fit the description of an appropriate authority as envisioned

by the IESBA’s pronouncement on NOCLAR.

To best illustrate this viewpoint, we highlight one such scenario

where we were contacted by a registered auditor whose client – an

Accountable Institution – failed to submit a cash threshold report

(CTR) to the FIC. The client in question had previously submitted

multiple CTR reports to the FIC without incident, and in this particular

case there was strong evidence to suggest that this omission

was in fact an isolated incident rather than a systemic issue. This

consideration together with other factors that were taken into

account by the registered auditor all resulted in him being doubtful

as to whether this omission committed by his client warranted the

reporting of an RI to the IRBA.

The registered auditor was, however, of the opinion that the incident

qualifies as a NOCLAR and that his client’s continued failure to

report this unreported CTR to the FIC might potentially cause

substantial harm to the public in the event of the unreported cash

deposit possibly representing the proceeds of criminal activities.

Should the registered auditor in question now be of the opinion that

further action is required with regards to reporting this matter directly

to an appropriate authority, then the IRBA will, in all probability, not

Issue 43 | July-September 2018