Tímarit um endurskoðun og reikningshald - 01.01.1976, Blaðsíða 43

D. R. Carmichael, CPA, Ph. D.
What is the independent auditor’s
responsbility for the detection of fraud?
Grein þessi er úr bandaríska tímarit-
inu ,.Journal of Accountancy“. Höfund-
ur og útgefendur veittu góðfúslega leyfi
sitt til birtingar greinarinnar hér í tíma-
ritinu.
When should an independent auditor be
responsible if his ordinary examination
of financial statements fails to detect a
material fraud?
If an audit is not meant to uncover
major frauds, its usefulness to those who
rely on audited financial statements is
considerably reduced. Most independent
auditors would probably agree. The pro-
blem is the distinction between “meant
to uncover” and actually uncovering.
Some frauds should be detected in any
ordinary examination. Other frauds, how-
ever, would be so difficult to detect that
assumption of responsbility for their de-
tection would be an impossible burden
for independent auditors to bear. Be-
tween those extremes are a number of
gradations that make up the large
“gray” area within which most frauds
would fa.ll. The AICPA’s auditing stand-
ards executive committee is working on
a project to illuminate that gray area.
As the term is commonly used in dis-
cussion of the auditor’s responsibility,
fraud means material misstatement of
financial statements caused by either de-
liberate misrepresentations by manage-
ment, such as overstatement of net ass-
ets or income to mislead investors or
credit grantors, or concealment of the
misappropriation of assets, sometimes re-
ferred to as defalcations and similar ir-
regularities.
If an auditor’s ordinary examination of
financial statements fails to detect a mate-
rial misstatement caused by fraud, his
responsbility should be based on a con-
sideration of whether the level of skill
and care he exercised was reasonable in
the circumstances. l’he problem of iden-
tifying the auditor’s responsibility is one
of obtaining agreement and general und-
erstanding concerning the level of skill
and care it is reasonable to expect of the
auditor in searching for fraud that might
have a material effect on financial state-
ments. No profession is expected to attain
perfection in achieving its objectives. An
audit cannot be a guarantee against
fraud, but it should provide reasonable
grounds for an honest belief that a ma-
terial fraud has not caused the financial
statements to be misstated.
Changing objectives of audiling
Fram its distant origins auditing has al-
ways been considered as an independent
control over stewardship, i.e., an objec-
tive review of individuals entrusted with
scarce resources or important responsbili-
ties. When the resource in question was
an agricultural or commercial commodity,
the function performed by the auditor
was an overall consideration of the pro-
priety and diligence of the steward’s per-
formance. As commerce developed and
money became the primary medium of
exchange, money and records of accoun-
tability for money became the focus of
the audit and detection of defalcations
41