|Mr Paul Boorman, Global Leader -Operations for PwC|
|Dr Coenraad Van Beek, Global Leader for Ethics and Business Conduct|
Gentlemen, on the 6th of January, 2000, the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission made public this report by independent consultant Jess Fardella.
According to the independent consultant's report, PwC acknowledges that the review disclosed widespread independence non-compliance that reflected serious structural and cultural problems in the firm.
Securities and Exchange Commission Chief Accountant Lynn E. Turner said, "This report is a sobering reminder that accounting professionals need to renew their commitment to the fundamental principle of auditor independence."
Prior to the acquisition by IBM Corporation of PwC's Global Consulting Business, the SEC announced a settled enforcement action against PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) for another rash of alleged auditor-independence violations. PwC settled these charges without admitting guilt for a $5 million fine and a promise to improve certain internal procedures.
We have two promises so far to improve internal procedures in PwC.
Subsequent to the acquisition, Congressman Edward Markey blasted the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for its "dead wrong" decision to allow IBM to keep PricewaterhouseCoopers as its auditor.
According to the EEC's Article of non opposition to the acquisition, " IBM will, through the notified transaction, purchase substantially all of PwC's global management consulting and technology business from the relevant local firm on a country by country basis".
In light of the continuing fraud perpetrated by PwC in Malaysia with regards to the non disposal of PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U) to IBM Corp, when PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP sold its global management consulting and technology services business to IBM Corp back in 2002, how have the internal procedures in PwC been improved so far?
How does the renaming of PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting (East Asia) Sdn Bhd, to PwC Consulting Sdn Bhd (289801-A), the appointments of "sham Directors" who have never had anything to do with the PwC Consulting business into that company, and its subsequent sale to IBM valid, when the contingent liabilities were kept hidden in the real consulting arm of PwC in Malaysia, namely PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U). How can any of this exhibit an improvement in internal procedures?
How can the continued Audits of IBM in Malaysia by PwC be allowed, when even back in 2002 Congressman Edward Markey blasted it as a 'dead wrong' decision, and here we have the Senior Partners in PwC Malaysia remaining as the Directors and shareholders of the consulting company, PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U), which should now be under IBM?
How does the appointment of tainted auditors, to audit the books for PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U), by the Senior partners of the largest audit firm in the country, and one of the big 4 in the world, which has time and again made promises to improve its internal procedures, be something that can be considered acceptable in any way, manner or form?
How has the EEC's Article of non-opposition, in addition to the no-action letter issued by the SEC not been vitiated by the actions of the Country Managing partner, Mr Chin Kwai Fatt & Co, with regards to PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting Sdn Bhd (464379-U), remaining under him and his cohorts?
Gentlemen, time is of the essence, we believe that you are aware that this questions are being read around the world. How can there be continued silence in face of the irrefutable evidence of fraud perpetrated by PwC in Malaysia, when the world has seen time and again that PwC has promised to improve itself whenever questions have been asked of its conduct.
The world is watching.