Auditing standardsprovide that in the process of audit verification, the auditor must come to reliable knowledge of the facts revealed. National auditing standards claim that credibility is full proof of the fact.
All final conclusions of the auditor should be verified by a system of authenticating facts. According to some experts, the quality of evidence is determined by:
1) proximity to a real event;
2) establishing a causal correspondence between fact and evidence;
3) reliability of sources. This is also the basis for internal auditing standards.
В соответствии с первым пунктом применяются три The main class of evidence: natural, artificial and rational argumentation. Auditing standards provide that the basis of the division are the facts on which the statement is based. Unfortunately, the existing legal norms and established traditional standards of auditing do not fully regulate the question of how an auditor should act if, according to an agreement concluded with the board of directors, he established the appropriation of a certain amount of money by the manager or chief accountant of the company. It seems that, first of all, he is obliged to inform the directors about this, who in turn must bring the facts to the attention, depending on the size of the embezzlement, of the shareholders' meeting, since the auditor must inform the founders of the violation of the law.
If the auditor, when checking, found that partthe boards or the executive director are responsible for actions or omissions that usually entail reparation obligations, or that part of the board or the executive director acted in violation of the law, he should note this in the report. Before the auditor there is also a problem - whether to report abuse to the investigating authorities. It is important to keep in mind who is the owner of the enterprise or company.
If the enterprise is state-owned, thenAccording to the article of the Criminal Code, this is a “failure to report a ... serious crime.” Modern standards of auditing establish the principle that if during the audit of all circumstances of calculations with the budget, the auditor has established an understatement of payments to the budget, then he should help the company's accountant to correctly calculate the tax calculation and recommend making appropriate changes to the balance sheet. Report to the tax service should not be, because it is contrary to the status of auditing as a system of independence of financial control. The activity of the auditor does not imply liability insurance of the client, as this is the business of insurance organizations. For all the significance of the indicators reflected in the normative acts, they turned out to be clearly insufficient for an objective, reliable assessment of economic insolvency during the audit.
Solvency of modern marketenterprises can not be characterized only by the current liquidity of its assets and can not be grounds for suspicion of fraud. Therefore, such violations can only be an intermediate characteristic of the state of finances of an enterprise or other verifiable resources. Through the implementation of effective measures by an enterprise, its reputation can be restored without a particularly tangible impact on its solvency and financial stability as a whole.
Thus, the audit should not serve as a tool for establishing and assuming illegal actions; this is not its function and it is simply wrongful to do this with the help of a financial audit.
