|
Abstract:
|
This
thesis
provides
an
analysis
of
the
extent
of
auditor’s
liability.
I
have
chosen
to
examine
three
forms
of
liability:
the
regular
liability,
criminal
and
disciplinary
liability.
The
analysis
includes
within
which
areas
auditors
and
audit
firms
have
incurred
a
liability.
The
method
of
the
analysis
is
empirical
and
intends
to
provide
an
understanding
of
how
auditors
incur
liability
in
connection
with
their
work.
For
each
form
of
the
liabilities,
I
will
start
by
examining
and
explaining
the
part
of
the
laws
the
auditors
are
subject
to.
Subsequently,
I
will
define
the
concept
of
the
moral
code
of
auditing.
To
examining
the
extent
of
auditors
liability,
I
have
a
gathered
all
published
judgements
and
adjudications
within
the
liabilities
from
2009
to
first
half
of
2014.
In
addition
an
interview
with
a
senior
prosecutor
from
SØIK
has
been
conducted,
with
the
purpose
to
get
an
insight
into
how
SØIK
is
working
and
dealing
with
cases
where
auditors
are
involved.
Most
cases
are
within
the
disciplinary
liability.
Both
registered
and
chartered
accountants
are
responsible
in
the
violation
of
the
moral
code
of
auditing.
Within
this
liability
the
majority,
with
73
pct.,
has
neglected
the
formal
requirements
when
making
a
§1,
paragraph
2
statements.
The
formal
requirements
include
audit
evidence,
declaration
of
independence
etc.
Further
the
analysis
has
shown
that
30
pct.
of
the
auditors
are
missing
a
proviso
or
supplemental
information
and
13
pct.
are
lacking
supplemental
information
about
an
illegal
loan
to
a
shareholder.
Additionally,
15
pct.
have
infringed
their
independence,
by
having
economic
interest
or
other
circumstances,
which
arouses
doubt
at
a
third
party.
During
the
analysed
period,
there
is
only
published
one
judgement
in
criminal
liability.
The
audit
firm
that
was
brought
before
the
court
was
found
guilty
by
not
having
done
a
second
option
on
a
calculation
of
property-‐profit
in
a
tax
return
for
a
client.
Within
the
liability,
auditors
and
audit
firms
are
incurred
in
connection
with
consulting.
Of
the
published
compensation
cases,
75
pct.
of
the
auditors
and
50
pct.
of
audit
firms
have
rendered
themselves
liable.
The
auditors
that
incur
a
liability
for
compensation
are
typically
chartered
accountants,
whereas
the
majority
of
auditors
who
incurs
a
disciplinary
liability
are
registered
accountants.
By
analysing
and
comparing
the
results
from
the
empirical
analysis,
the
thesis
concludes
that
registered
accountants
commit
more
fundamental
missteps,
while
chartered
accountants
makes
more
mistakes
in
connection
with
consulting,
which
indicates
that
some
auditors
are
not
familiar
with
the
limitation
of
their
own
skills. |
