Said the AOB in the annual report: “Other than instances where there was insufficient documentation for the audit evidence obtained, there were instances where the necessary audit procedures and evidence were clearly not performed or obtained. It is pertinent to recognise that without sufficient evidence and analysis, the auditor may not have a basis to support their opinion.”
Big Four among audit firms with faults ~ Errol Oh
|P. Gunasegaram, Managing Editor of The Star|
|Errol Oh, Deputy Editor Bizweek, The Star|
In your interview with En Nik Hasyudeen of the Audit Oversight Board, it was clearly stated that the AOB takes the question of documentation very seriously, in its inspections of the audit firms.
We now have a problem of an entirely new nature with regards to the documentation practices of PwC Malaysia.
You see Mr Errol, what has happened is this. We received some inside information and verified that information with documents in the public domain, that are part of an ongoing civil suit in which PwC Malaysia are defendants.
One of the documents, called Document 41 in the filing, has been found out to be doctored. You can read the details here and here.
What do we do now, when we have evidence that PwC Malaysia, on top of all the allegations of fraud against them, is now capable of submitting doctored documents to a court of law.
Does it not seem that someone must take PwC Malaysia to task on behalf of all the shareholders of the PIE's which PwC Malaysia audits.
Perhaps a capable journalist such as yourself will be able to unearth the truth of what really goes behind the doors of the biggest audit firm in the country. And since in this particular example, Document 41 is in the public domain, a simple phone call from your news paper can have that stack of affidavits related to the case and document 41 itself on your desk, so that you can decide for yourself if PwC Malaysia deserves to be let off the hook.
We trust that you will do the right thing.