Skip to main content

Price Waterhouse banned from audit for 2 years

Price Waterhouse banned from audit for 2 years
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) late on Wednesday banned Price Waterhouse (PW) from providing audit services to listed companies and market intermediaries for two years in the Satyam fraud case. Two PW partners have been banned for three years.
The regulator also imposed a disgorgement of Rs 130.9 million on Price Waterhouse, and two of its chartered accountants —S Gopalakrishnan and Srinivas Talluri.The three entities also have to pay 12 per cent interest on the disgorgement amount since January 7, 2009, in 45 days from the date of the order.
Further, it said that no listed company or intermediary registered with Sebi to be engaged with any audit firm associated with the PW network for issuing any certificate with respect to compliance of statutory obligations which Sebi is competent to administer and enforce, under various laws for a period of two years.
These entities have been charged under Sebi´s prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices (FUTP) regulation.“I find that the auditors have failed in showing any evidence to the effect that they had done their job with standards of professional duty and care as required.
The auditors were well aware of the consequences of their omissions which would make such accumulated and aggregated acts of gross negligence scale up to an act of commission of fraud for the purposes of the Sebi Act and the Sebi (FUTP) regulation,” said G Mahalingam, wholetime member, Sebi, ina108 page order.
The case dates back to 2009, when chairman of Satyam Computer Services (Satyam)BRamalinga Raju admitted and confessed to large scale financial manipulations in Satyam´s book of accounts to the tune of Rs 50.4 billion.Soon after this, Sebi initiated investigation and later on issued show cause notices to PW and its associates in February 2009.
Further notices were issued to PW in 2012 under FUTP regulations.Sebi, which has been probing PW for nearly a decade, and was asked by the Supreme Court in January 2017 to expedite the matter, held a series of hearings with the auditing major and its officials during MayJune this year. The Supreme Court had directed Sebi to complete in six months its enquiry proceedings against PW.
“A dispassionate analysis of the whole episode spanning overaperiod of at least eight years would reveal that the perpetration of the fraud could not have been made possible without the knowledge and involvement of the statutory auditors of PW,” Sebi noted.“In my assessment, the circumstances point towards gross negligence and fraudulent misrepresentation.
note that the auditors made material representations in the certifications without any supporting document.The acts of the auditor induced the public to trade consistently in the shares of the company,” explained Mahalingam.Sebi noted that the impact of the fraud was such that as soon as the scam unfolded, the price of the scrip dipped toalow of Rs 41.05 on January 7, 2009, from Rs178.95 on the previous day´s price on NSE.
“This shows that the acts of the auditor resulted in loss to the investors of the company,” said Sebi.According to Sebi, the objective of insulating the securities market from such fraudulent accounting practices perpetrated by an international firm of repute will be ineffective if the directions do not bring within its sweep, the brand name PW.
“The network structure of operations adopted by the international accounting firm should not be used asashield to avoid legal implications arising out of the certifications issued under the brand name of the network,” the order said.
Pursuant to Sebi´s showcause notice, Price Waterhouse had moved the Bombay High Court, saying that Sebi beingastock market regulator has no jurisdiction to issue showcause notice to auditors´ firm.Onlyabody such as Institute of Chartered Accountants of India can do this, it contended.
On the other hand, Sebi had said that auditors have “direct, fiduciary” relationship with shareholders and they had incurred losses due to decisions based on Satyam´s balance sheet.Later, the Bombay High Court ruled that Sebi had the powers to issue showcause notice to PW.
Later, PW had approached the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) on the issue of cross examination, following which the Tribunal last month asked the regulator to allow cross examination of some more persons.Besides, they were asked to pay close to Rs 15 billion as interest on the disgorgement amount, as the penalty was levied with effect from January 7, 2009 -the day Raju admitted toamassive longrunning fraud at the firm.
After hearing appeal against these orders, the SAT in May 2017 directed Sebi to passafresh order with respect to the quantum of punishment given to Raju and four others.In a late night statement, PW said it was disappointed with the order.
“The Sebi order relates toafraud that took place nearly a decade ago in which we played no part and had no knowledge of. As we have said since 2009, there has been no intentional wrong doing by PW firms in the unprecedented management perpetrated fraud at Satyam, nor have we seen any material evidence to the contrary.
We believe that the order is also not in line with the directions of the Bombay High Court order of 2010 and so we are confident of getting a stay before this order becomes effective”.
PW said it had learnt the lessons of Satyam and “invested heavily over the last nine years in building a robust and high quality audit practice, as also confirmed in 2015 by an independent monitor appointed by the US SEC and PCAOB.”

The Business Standard, New Delhi, 11/01/2018

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Deposit gush:-CA Institute Bats for Special Audit

Obligation for the Month of May 2017

Obligation for the Month of May 2017 Event DateActApplicable FormObligation6-May-2017Service TaxChallan No.GAR-7E-Payment of Service Tax for April by Cos7-May-2017Income TaxForm No.27C (TCS)Submission of Forms received in Apr  to IT Commissioner7-May-2017Income TaxChallan No.ITNS-281Payment of TDS/TCS deducted/collected in Apr10-May-2017ExciseER-1Return for Non SSI assessees for Apr10-May-2017ExciseER-2Return for EOUs for Apr10-May-2017ExciseER-6Return by units paying duty >  1 crore (CENVAT + PLA) for Apr12-May-2017D-VATBE - 2Advance information for 2nd fortnight of May of functions with booking cost > Rs 1 lakh in Banquet Halls,hotels etc. in Delhi15-May-2017D-VATDVAT-20Deposit of DVAT TDS for  Apr15-May-2017Income TaxForm 27EQTCS Returns by ALL Collectors15-May-2017Providend FundElectronic Challan cum Return (ECR)E-Payment of PF for Apr15-May-2017D-VATDVAT-48 Return of DVAT TDS for quarter ending March21-May-2017ESIESI ChallanPayment of ESI of Apr21-May-2017M-VATMVAT ChallanPa…

RBI minutes show MPC members flagged upside risks to inflation

RBI minutes show MPC members flagged upside risks to inflation Concerns about economic growth and easing inflation prompted five of the six monetary policy committee (MPC) members to call for a cut in the repo rate, but most warned that prices could start accelerating, show the minutes of the panel’s last meeting, released on Wednesday. The comments reflected a tone of caution and flagged upside risks to inflation from farm loan waivers, rise in food prices, especially vegetables, price revisions withheld ahead of the goods and services tax, implementation of house rent allowance under the 7th pay commission and fading of favourable base effect, among others. On 2 August, the panel chose to cut the repurchase rate—the rate at which the central bank infuses liquidity in the banking system—by 25 basis points to 6%. One basis point is one-hundredth of a percentage point. Pami Dua, professor at the Delhi School of Economics, wrote that her analysis showed “a fading economic growth outlook, as …