46. The auditor shall document communications about fraud made to management, those charged with governance, regulators and others.
47. When the auditor has concluded that the presumption that there is a risk of material misstatement due to fraud related to revenue recognition is not applicable in the circumstances of the engagement, the auditor shall document the reasons for that conclusion. ***
Application and Other Explanatory Material
Characteristics of Fraud (Ref: Para. 3)
A1. Fraud, whether fraudulent financial reporting or misappropriation of assets, involves incentive or pressure to commit fraud, a perceived opportunity to do so and some rationalization of the act. For example: Incentive or pressure to commit fraudulent financial reporting may exist when management is under pressure, from sources outside or inside the entity, to achieve an expected (and perhaps unrealistic) earnings target or 14 SA 315, paragraph 32. 15 SA 330, paragraph 28. financial outcome – particularly since the consequences to management for failing to meet financial goals can be significant. Similarly, individuals may have an incentive to misappropriate assets, for example, because the individuals are living beyond their means. A perceived opportunity to commit fraud may exist when an individual believes internal control can be overridden, for example, because the individual is in a position of trust or has knowledge of specific deficiencies in internal control. Individuals may be able to rationalize committing a fraudulent act. Some individuals possess an attitude, character or set of ethical values that allow them knowingly and intentionally to commit a dishonest act. However, even otherwise honest individuals can commit fraud in an environment that imposes sufficient pressure on them.
A2. Fraudulent financial reporting involves intentional misstatements including omissions of amounts or disclosures in financial statements to deceive financial statement users. It can be caused by the efforts of management to manage earnings in order to deceive financial statement users by influencing their perceptions as to the entity’s performance and profitability. Such earnings management may start out with small actions or inappropriate adjustment of assumptions and changes in judgments by management. Pressures and incentives may lead these actions to increase to the extent that they result in fraudulent financial reporting. Such a situation could occur when, due to pressures to meet market expectations or a desire to maximize compensation based on performance, management intentionally takes positions that lead to fraudulent financial reporting by materially misstating the financial statements. In some entities, management may be motivated to reduce earnings by a material amount to minimize tax or to inflate earnings to secure bank financing.
A3. Fraudulent financial reporting may be accomplished by the following: Manipulation, falsification (including forgery), or alteration of accounting records or supporting documentation from which the financial statements are prepared. Misrepresentation in or intentional omission from, the financial statements of events, transactions or other significant information. Intentional misapplication of accounting principles relating to amounts, classification, manner of presentation, or disclosure.
A4. Fraudulent financial reporting often involves management override of controls that otherwise may appear to be operating effectively. Fraud can be committed by management overriding controls using such techniques as: Recording fictitious journal entries, particularly close to the end of an accounting period, to manipulate operating results or achieve other objectives. Inappropriately adjusting assumptions and changing judgments used to estimate account balances. Omitting, advancing or delaying recognition in the financial statements of events and transactions that have occurred during the reporting period. Concealing, or not disclosing, facts that could affect the amounts recorded in the financial statements. Engaging in complex transactions that are structured to misrepresent the financial position or financial performance of the entity. Altering records and terms related to significant and unusual transactions.
A5. Misappropriation of assets involves the theft of an entity’s assets and is often perpetrated by employees in relatively small and immaterial amounts. However, it can also involve management who are usually more able to disguise or conceal misappropriations in ways that are difficult to detect. Misappropriation of assets can be accomplished in a variety of ways including: Embezzling receipts (for example, misappropriating collections on accounts receivable or diverting receipts in respect of written-off accounts to personal bank accounts). Stealing physical assets or intellectual property (for example, stealing inventory for personal use or for sale, stealing scrap for resale, colluding with a competitor by disclosing technological data in return for payment). Causing an entity to pay for goods and services not received (for example, payments to fictitious vendors, kickbacks paid by vendors to the entity’s purchasing agents in return for inflating prices, payments to fictitious employees). Using an entity’s assets for personal use (for example, using the entity’s assets as collateral for a personal loan or a loan to a related party). Misappropriation of assets is often accompanied by false or misleading records or documents in order to conceal the fact that the assets are missing or have been pledged without proper authorization.
A6. The auditor may, at times, be required to by a legislation or a regulation to make a specific assertion in respect of frauds on/by the entity in his report. For example, Clause (xxi) of Paragraph 4 of the Companies (Auditor’s Report) Order, 2003 requires the auditor to specifically report “whether any fraud on or by the entity has been noticed or reported during the year; if yes, the nature and amount involved is to be indicated”. Similarly, in case of audit of banks, the auditors, in terms of the circular no. DBS.FGV.(F).No. BC/23.08.001/2001-02, is required to report to the Reserve Bank of India anything susceptible to fraud or fraudulent activity or act of excess power or any foul play in any transaction. Consequently, in such cases, the auditor’s responsibilities may not be limited to consideration of risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, but may also include a broader responsibility to consider risks of fraud.
Professional Skepticism (Ref: Para. 12-14)
A7. Maintaining professional skepticism requires an ongoing questioning of whether the information and audit evidence obtained suggests that a material misstatement due to fraud may exist. It includes considering the reliability of the information to be used as audit evidence and the controls over its preparation and maintenance where relevant. Due to the characteristics of fraud, the auditor’s professional skepticism is particularly important when considering the risks of material misstatement due to fraud.
A8. Although the auditor cannot be expected to disregard past experience of the honesty and integrity of the entity’s management and those charged with governance, the auditor’s professional skepticism is particularly important in considering the risks of material misstatement due to fraud because there may have been changes in circumstances.
A9. As explained in SA 200, an audit performed in accordance with SAs rarely involves the authentication of documents, nor is the auditor trained as or expected to be an expert in such authentication.16 However, when the auditor identifies conditions that cause the auditor to believe that a document may not be authentic or that terms in a document have been modified but not disclosed to the auditor, possible procedures to investigate further may include: Confirming directly with the third party. Using the work of an expert to assess the document’s authenticity.
Discussion Among the Engagement Team (Ref: Para. 15)
A10. Discussing the susceptibility of the entity’s financial statements to material misstatement due to fraud with the engagement team: Provides an opportunity for more experienced engagement team members to share their insights about how and where the financial statements may be susceptible to material misstatement due to fraud. Enables the auditor to consider an appropriate response to such susceptibility and to determine which members of the engagement team will conduct certain audit procedures. 16 SA 200, paragraph A47. Permits the auditor to determine how the results of audit procedures will be shared among the engagement team and how to deal with any allegations of fraud that may come to the auditor’s attention.
A11. The discussion may include such matters as: An exchange of ideas among engagement team members about how and where they believe the entity’s financial statements may be susceptible to material misstatement due to fraud, how management could perpetrate and conceal fraudulent financial reporting, and how assets of the entity could be misappropriated. A consideration of circumstances that might be indicative of earnings management and the practices that might be followed by management to manage earnings that could lead to fraudulent financial reporting. A consideration of the known external and internal factors affecting the entity that may create an incentive or pressure for management or others to commit fraud, provide the opportunity for fraud to be perpetrated, and indicate a culture or environment that enables management or others to rationalize committing fraud. A consideration of management’s involvement in overseeing employees with access to cash or other assets susceptible to misappropriation. A consideration of any unusual or unexplained changes in behavior or lifestyle of management or employees which have come to the attention of the engagement team. An emphasis on the importance of maintaining a proper state of mind throughout the audit regarding the potential for material misstatement due to fraud. A consideration of the types of circumstances that, if encountered, might indicate the possibility of fraud. A consideration of how an element of unpredictability will be incorporated into the nature, timing and extent of the audit procedures to be performed. A consideration of the audit procedures that might be selected to respond to the susceptibility of the entity’s financial statement to material misstatement due to fraud and whether certain types of audit procedures are more effective than others. A consideration of any allegations of fraud that have come to the auditor’s attention. A consideration of the risk of management override of controls.
Risk Assessment Procedures and Related Activities
Management’s Assessment of the Risk of Material Misstatement Due to Fraud [Ref: Para. 17(a)]
A12. Management accepts responsibility for the entity’s internal control and for the preparation of the entity’s financial statements. Accordingly, it is appropriate for the auditor to make inquiries of management regarding management’s own assessment of the risk of fraud and the controls in place to prevent and detect it. The nature, extent and frequency of management’s assessment of such risk and controls may vary from entity to entity. In some entities, management may make detailed assessments on an annual basis or as part of continuous monitoring. In other entities, management’s assessment may be less structured and less frequent. The nature, extent and frequency of management’s assessment are relevant to the auditor’s understanding of the entity’s control environment. For example, the fact that management has not made an assessment of the risk of fraud may in some circumstances be indicative of the lack of importance that management places on internal control.
Considerations specific to smaller entities
A13. In some entities, particularly smaller entities, the focus of management’s assessment may be on the risks of employee fraud or misappropriation of assets. Management’s Process for Identifying and Responding to the Risks of Fraud (Ref: Para. 17(b))
A14. In the case of entities with multiple locations management’s processes may include different levels of monitoring of operating locations, or business segments. Management may also have identified particular operating locations or business segments for which a risk of fraud may be more likely to exist. Inquiry of Management and Others within the Entity (Ref: Para. 18)
A15. The auditor’s inquiries of management may provide useful information concerning the risks of material misstatements in the financial statements resulting from employee fraud. However, such inquiries are unlikely to provide useful information regarding the risks of material misstatement in the financial statements resulting from management fraud. Making inquiries of others within the entity may provide individuals with an opportunity to convey information to the auditor that may not otherwise be communicated.
A16. Examples of others within the entity to whom the auditor may direct inquiries about the existence or suspicion of fraud include: Operating personnel not directly involved in the financial reporting process. Employees with different levels of authority. Employees involved in initiating, processing or recording complex or unusual transactions and those who supervise or monitor such employees. In-house legal counsel. Chief ethics officer or equivalent person. The person or persons charged with dealing with allegations of fraud.
A17. Management is often in the best position to perpetrate fraud. Accordingly, when evaluating management’s responses to inquiries with an attitude of professional skepticism, the auditor may judge it necessary to corroborate responses to inquiries with other information.
Inquiry of Internal Audit (Ref: Para. 19)
A18. SA 315 and SA 610(Revised), establishes requirements and provides guidance in audits of those entities that have an internal audit function.17 In carrying out the requirement of those SAs in the context of fraud, the auditor may inquire about specific internal audit activities including, for example: The procedures performed, if any, by the internal auditors during the year to detect fraud. Whether management has satisfactorily responded to any findings resulting from those procedures.
Obtaining an Understanding of Oversight Exercised by Those Charged
With Governance (Ref: Para. 20)
A19. Those charged with governance of an entity have oversight responsibility for systems for monitoring risk, financial control and compliance with the law. In many entities, corporate governance practices are well developed and those charged with governance play an active role in oversight of the entity’s assessment of the risks of fraud and of the relevant internal control. Since the responsibilities of those charged with governance and management may vary by entity, it is important that the auditor understands their respective responsibilities to enable the auditor to obtain an understanding of the oversight exercised by the appropriate individuals.18 17 SA 315, paragraph 23 and SA 610(Revised), “Using the Work of Internal Auditors”. 18 SA 260(Revised), “Communication with Those Charged with Governance”, paragraphs A1-A8, discusses with whom the auditor communicates when the entity’s governance structure is not well defined.
A20. An understanding of the oversight exercised by those charged with governance may provide insights regarding the susceptibility of the entity to management fraud, the adequacy of internal control over risks of fraud, and the competency and integrity of management. The auditor may obtain this understanding in a number of ways, such as by attending meetings where such discussions take place, reading the minutes from such meetings or making inquiries of those charged with governance.
Considerations Specific to Smaller Entities
A21. In some cases, all of those charged with governance are involved in managing the entity. This may be the case in a small entity where a single owner manages the entity and no one else has a governance role. In these cases, there is ordinarily no action on the part of the auditor because there is no oversight separate from management.
Consideration of Other Information (Ref: Para. 23)
A22. In addition to information obtained from applying analytical procedures, other information obtained about the entity and its environment may be helpful in identifying the risks of material misstatement due to fraud. The discussion among team members may provide information that is helpful in identifying such risks. In addition, information obtained from the auditor’s client acceptance and retention processes, and experience gained on other engagements performed for the entity, for example engagements to review interim financial information, may be relevant in the identification of the risks of material misstatement due to fraud.
Evaluation of Fraud Risk Factors (Ref: Para. 24)
A23. The fact that fraud is usually concealed can make it very difficult to detect. Nevertheless, the auditor may identify events or conditions that indicate an incentive or pressure to commit fraud or provide an opportunity to commit fraud (fraud risk factors). For example: The need to meet expectations of third parties to obtain additional equity financing may create pressure to commit fraud; The granting of significant bonuses if unrealistic profit targets are met may create an incentive to commit fraud; and A control environment that is not effective may create an opportunity to commit fraud.
A24. Fraud risk factors cannot easily be ranked in order of importance. The significance of fraud risk factors varies widely. Some of these factors will be present in entities where the specific conditions do not present risks of material misstatement. Accordingly, the determination of whether a fraud risk factor is present and whether it is to be considered in assessing the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements due to fraud requires the exercise of professional judgment.
A25. Examples of fraud risk factors related to fraudulent financial reporting and misappropriation of assets are presented in Appendix 1. These illustrative risk factors are classified based on the three conditions that are generally present when fraud exists: An incentive or pressure to commit fraud; A perceived opportunity to commit fraud; and An ability to rationalize the fraudulent action. Risk factors reflective of an attitude that permits rationalization of the fraudulent action may not be susceptible to observation by the auditor. Nevertheless, the auditor may become aware of the existence of such information. Although the fraud risk factors described in Appendix 1 cover a broad range of situations that may be faced by auditors, they are only examples and other risk factors may exist.
A26. The size, complexity, and ownership characteristics of the entity have a significant influence on the consideration of relevant fraud risk factors. For example, in the case of a large entity, there may be factors that generally constrain improper conduct by management, such as: Effective oversight by those charged with governance. An effective internal audit function. The existence and enforcement of a written code of conduct. Furthermore, fraud risk factors considered at a business segment operating level may provide different insights when compared with those obtained when considered at an entity-wide level.
Considerations Specific to Smaller Entities
A27. In the case of a small entity, some or all of these considerations may be inapplicable or less relevant. For example, a smaller entity may not have a written code of conduct but, instead, may have developed a culture that emphasizes the importance of integrity and ethical behavior through oral communication and by management example. Domination of management by a single individual in a small entity does not generally, in and of itself, indicate a failure by management to display and communicate an appropriate attitude regarding internal control and the financial reporting process. In some entities, the need for management authorization can compensate for otherwise deficient controls and reduce the risk of employee fraud. However, domination of management by a single individual can be a potential deficiency in internal control since there is an opportunity for management override of controls.
Identification and Assessment of the Risks of Material Misstatement
Risks of Fraud in Revenue Recognition (Ref: Para. 26)
A28. Material misstatement due to fraudulent financial reporting relating to revenue recognition often results from an overstatement of revenues through, for example, premature revenue recognition or recording fictitious revenues. It may result also from an understatement of revenues through, for example, improperly shifting revenues to a later period.
A29. The risks of fraud in revenue recognition may be greater in some entities than others. For example, there may be pressures or incentives on management to commit fraudulent financial reporting through inappropriate revenue recognition in the case of listed entities when, for example, performance is measured in terms of year-over-year revenue growth or profit. Similarly, for example, there may be greater risks of fraud in revenue recognition in the case of entities that generate a substantial portion of revenues through cash sales.
A30. The presumption that there are risks of fraud in revenue recognition may be rebutted. For example, the auditor may conclude that there is no risk of material misstatement due to fraud relating to revenue recognition in the case where there is a single type of simple revenue transaction, for example, leasehold revenue from a single unit rental property. Identifying and Assessing the Risks of Material Misstatement Due to Fraud and Understanding the Entity’s Related Controls (Ref: Para. 27)
A31. As explained in SA 315 management may make judgments on the nature and extent of the controls it chooses to implement, and the nature and extent of the risks it chooses to assume.19 In determining which controls to implement to prevent and detect fraud, management considers the risks that the financial statements may be materially misstated as a result of fraud. As part of this consideration, management may conclude that it is not cost effective to implement and maintain a particular control in relation to the reduction in the risks of material misstatement due to fraud to be achieved.
A32. It is therefore important for the auditor to obtain an understanding of the controls that management has designed, implemented and maintained to prevent 19 SA 315, paragraph A54. and detect fraud. In doing so, the auditor may learn, for example, that management has consciously chosen to accept the risks associated with a lack of segregation of duties. Information from obtaining this understanding may also be useful in identifying fraud risks factors that may affect the auditor’s assessment of the risks that the financial statements may contain material misstatement due to fraud.
Responses to the Assessed Risks of Material Misstatement Due to
Overall Responses (Ref: Para. 28)
A33. Determining overall responses to address the assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud generally includes the consideration of how the overall conduct of the audit can reflect increased professional skepticism, for example, through: Increased sensitivity in the selection of the nature and extent of documentation to be examined in support of material transactions. Increased recognition of the need to corroborate management explanations or representations concerning material matters. It also involves more general considerations apart from the specific procedures otherwise planned; these considerations include the matters listed in paragraph 29, which are discussed below.
Assignment and Supervision of Personnel (Ref: Para. 29(a))
A34. The auditor may respond to identified risks of material misstatement due to fraud by, for example, assigning additional individuals with specialized skill and knowledge, such as forensic and IT experts, or by assigning more experienced individuals to the engagement.
A35. The extent of supervision reflects the auditor’s assessment of risks of material misstatement due to fraud and the competencies of the engagement team members performing the work. Unpredictability in the Selection of Audit Procedures (Ref: Para. 29(c))
A36. Incorporating an element of unpredictability in the selection of the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures to be performed is important as individuals within the entity who are familiar with the audit procedures normally performed on engagements may be more able to conceal fraudulent financial reporting. This can be achieved by, for example: Performing substantive procedures on selected account balances and assertions not otherwise tested due to their materiality or risk. Adjusting the timing of audit procedures from that otherwise expected. Using different sampling methods. Performing audit procedures at different locations or at locations on an unannounced basis.
Audit Procedures Responsive to Assessed Risks of Material Misstatement
Due to Fraud at the Assertion Level (Ref: Para. 30)
A37. The auditor’s responses to address the assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud at the assertion level may include changing the nature, timing, and extent of audit procedures in the following ways: The nature of audit procedures to be performed may need to be changed to obtain audit evidence that is more reliable and relevant or to obtain additional corroborative information. This may affect both the type of audit procedures to be performed and their combination. For example: o Physical observation or inspection of certain assets may become more important or the auditor may choose to use computer-assisted audit techniques to gather more evidence about data contained in significant accounts or electronic transaction files. o The auditor may design procedures to obtain additional corroborative information. For example, if the auditor identifies that management is under pressure to meet earnings expectations, there may be a related risk that management is inflating sales by entering into sales agreements that include terms that preclude revenue recognition or by invoicing sales before delivery. In these circumstances, the auditor may, for example, design external confirmations not only to confirm outstanding amounts, but also to confirm the details of the sales agreements, including date, any rights of return and delivery terms. In addition, the auditor might find it effective to supplement such external confirmations with inquiries of non-financial personnel in the entity regarding any changes in sales agreements and delivery terms. The timing of substantive procedures may need to be modified. The auditor may conclude that performing substantive testing at or near the period end better addresses an assessed risk of material misstatement due to fraud. The auditor may conclude that, given the assessed risks of intentional misstatement or manipulation, audit procedures to extend audit conclusions from an interim date to the period end would not be effective. In contrast, because an intentional misstatement—for example, a misstatement involving improper revenue recognition—may have been initiated in an interim period, the auditor may elect to apply substantive procedures to transactions occurring earlier in or throughout the reporting period. The extent of the procedures applied reflects the assessment of the risks of material misstatement due to fraud. For example, increasing sample sizes or performing analytical procedures at a more detailed level may be appropriate. Also, computer-assisted audit techniques may enable more extensive testing of electronic transactions and account files. Such techniques can be used to select sample transactions from key electronic files, to sort transactions with specific characteristics, or to test an entire population instead of a sample.
A38. If the auditor identifies a risk of material misstatement due to fraud that affects inventory quantities, examining the entity’s inventory records may help to identify locations or items that require specific attention during or after the physical inventory count. Such a review may lead to a decision to observe inventory counts at certain locations on an unannounced basis or to conduct inventory counts at all locations on the same date.
A39. The auditor may identify a risk of material misstatement due to fraud affecting a number of accounts and assertions. These may include asset valuation, estimates relating to specific transactions (such as acquisitions, restructurings, or disposals of a segment of the business), and other significant accrued liabilities (such as pension and other post-employment benefit obligations, or environmental remediation liabilities). The risk may also relate to significant changes in assumptions relating to recurring estimates. Information gathered through obtaining an understanding of the entity and its environment may assist the auditor in evaluating the reasonableness of such management estimates and underlying judgments and assumptions. A retrospective review of similar management judgments and assumptions applied in prior periods may also provide insight about the reasonableness of judgments and assumptions supporting management estimates.
A40. Examples of possible audit procedures to address the assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud, including those that illustrate the incorporation of an element of unpredictability, are presented in Appendix 2. The appendix includes examples of responses to the auditor’s assessment of the risks of material misstatement resulting from both fraudulent financial reporting, including fraudulent financial reporting resulting from revenue recognition, and misappropriation of assets.
Audit Procedures Responsive to Risks Related to Management Override of
Journal Entries and Other Adjustments (Ref: Para. 32(a))
A41. Material misstatement of financial statements due to fraud often involve the manipulation of the financial reporting process by recording inappropriate or unauthorized journal entries. This may occur throughout the year or at period end, or by management making adjustments to amounts reported in the financial statements that are not reflected in journal entries, such as through consolidating adjustments and reclassifications.
A42. Further, the auditor’s consideration of the risks of material misstatement associated with inappropriate override of controls over journal entries is important since automated processes and controls may reduce the risk of inadvertent error but do not overcome the risk that individuals may inappropriately override such automated processes, for example, by changing the amounts being automatically passed to the general ledger or to the financial reporting system. Furthermore, when IT is used to transfer information automatically, there may be little or no visible evidence of such intervention in the information systems.
A43. When identifying and selecting journal entries and other adjustments for testing and determining the appropriate method of examining the underlying support for the items selected, the following matters are of relevance: The assessment of the risks of material misstatement due to fraud – the presence of fraud risk factors and other information obtained during the auditor’s assessment of the risks of material misstatement due to fraud may assist the auditor to identify specific classes of journal entries and other adjustments for testing. Controls that have been implemented over journal entries and other adjustments – effective controls over the preparation and posting of journal entries and other adjustments may reduce the extent of substantive testing necessary, provided that the auditor has tested the operating effectiveness of the controls. The entity’s financial reporting process and the nature of evidence that can be obtained – for many entities routine processing of transactions involves a combination of manual and automated steps and procedures. Similarly, the processing of journal entries and other adjustments may involve both manual and automated procedures and controls. When information technology is used in the financial reporting process, journal entries and other adjustments may exist only in electronic form. The characteristics of fraudulent journal entries or other adjustments – inappropriate journal entries or other adjustments often have unique identifying characteristics. Such characteristics may include entries (a) made to unrelated, unusual, or seldom-used accounts, (b) made by individuals who typically do not make journal entries, (c) recorded at the end of the period or as post-closing entries that have little or no explanation or description, (d) made either before or during the preparation of the financial statements that do not have account numbers, or (e) containing round numbers or consistent ending numbers. The nature and complexity of the accounts – inappropriate journal entries or adjustments may be applied to accounts that (a) contain transactions that are complex or unusual in nature, (b) contain significant estimates and period-end adjustments, (c) have been prone to misstatements in the past,
