Forensic audit

AUDITING
FORENSIC
AUDITING
ajor accounting scandals involving
Enron, Worldtel and Parmalat have been
widely reported. In all these cases, the
methods and purpose of manipulations in
M
financial statements were peculiar to the motives of
such manipulations.
In another instance, KPMG Forensic conducted
survey of directors of Canada’s 75 biggest companies,
which revealed that more cases of financial account-ing
manipulation would emerge in the coming year.
Companies (Auditors’ Report) Order, 2003,
requires auditors to report, amongst others, “whether
any fraud on or by the company has been noticed or
reported during the year. If yes, the nature and the
amount involved are to be indicated”.
In this background, the techniques of Forensic
auditing have gained importance.
Forensic audit involves
examination of legalities
by blending the tech-niques
of propriety (VFM
audit), regularity and
investigative and finan-cial
audits. The objective
is to find out whether or
not true business value
has been reflected in the
financial statements and
in the course of examina-tion
to find whether any
fraud has taken place. S Vasudevan
Accounts – Sum of Actual
and Estimation
Financial statements, compiled on accrual basis,
represent the following:
● Actual receipts & payments (cash basis)
● Recognition of certain items of expenditure or income
on accrual basis, in accordance with the applicable
statements. For example, recognition of sale may be
either on appropriation of goods for delivery or on
actual delivery, both methods in accordance with stan-dards
but as suited to the needs of the entity
● Estimates of provisions and bad/irrecoverable
debts, or write back of creditors and provisions no
longer required, etc.
● Provisions for various intangible items, like foreign
currency fluctuations, retirement benefits based on
actuarial valuation or any other basis
● Adjustments on account of prior period transactions
The financial statements cannot be said to present
exactly the position of financial affairs. The true and fair
presentation is an attribute to the methods adopted in
compiling such financial statements. However, the basic
tenets of the principles of double entry accounting are to
be adhered to in maintenance of books of accounts.
The author is a Joint Director, Serious Frauds Investigation Office, Dept. of Company Affairs, Government of India. He can be reached at
vasakun@vsnl.net
THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT 359 SEPTEMBER 2004

AUDITING
Accounting Standards
Accounting Standards are only guiding tools in
preparation of financial statements. Accounting
Standards are epitome of various conventions, con-cepts,
principles and practices to be followed in pre-sentation
of financial affairs to reflect a true and fair
view. Most of the Accounting Standards are manda-tory.
These may broadly be classified into:
● Accounting specific: For example ‘inventory valua-tion’,
revenue recognition, provision for employees’
retirement benefits, valuation of investments, etc.
● Reporting and disclosure specific: For example
‘related party transactions’, contingents & events
occurring after balance sheet date, amalgamation &
mergers (mainly basis of valuation) or the treatment
of assets acquired out of grant-in-aid, etc.
Motives for Fraudulent Financial
Reporting by Management
(a) Management is under pressure, from sources out-side
or inside the entity, to achieve (perhaps unre-alistic)
target, where consequences of failure are
significant.
(b) To increase the entity’s stock price or earnings
trend.
(c) To keep the results attuned to knowingly unrealis-tic/
non-achievable forecasts/commitment made
to creditors and lenders.
(d) Tax-motivated reasons.
(e) To raise capital either by further issue of shares at
a premium and/or through borrowings
Corporate frauds are results of manipulation of
accounts and accounting jugglery designed to deceive
others for wrongful gains.
Forensic Auditing
This term has not been defined anywhere.
However, since the object is to relate the findings of
audit by gathering legally tenable evidence and in
doing so the corporate veil may be lifted (in case of
corporate entities) to identify the fraud and the persons
responsible for it (a criminal offence).
Financial Reporting and Frauds
Accounts may be falsified to conceal:
(a) Absolute theft of money or money’s value
(mainly relating to employees frauds).
(b) True results of operations, or financial position
of the entity with a view to prevent timely
detection of corporate frauds.
‘Fraud’ refers to an intentional act by one or more
individuals among management, those charged
with governance, employees, or third parties,
involving the use of deception to obtain an unjust
or illegal advantage. Fraudulent financial report-ing
involves intentional misstatements, in any one
or more ways as stated below:
❂ Deception such as manipulation, falsification
or alteration of accounting records or support-ing
documents.
❂ Misrepresentation in, or intentional omission
from the financial statements, significant
events, transactions or other information.
❂ Intentional, mis-application of accounting
principles relating to measurement, recogni-tion,
classification, presentation, or disclosure
of material transactions.
The concept of Financial Auditing may be
defined as “a concentrated audit of all the
transactions of the entity to find the correct-ness
of such transactions and to report
whether or not any financial benefit has been
attained by way of presenting an unreal pic-ture”.
Forensic auditing aims at legal determination
of whether fraud has actually occurred. In the
process, it also aims at naming the person(s)
involved (with a view to take legal action).

AUDITING
Distinction between Statutory Audit and Forensic Audit
S.No. Particulars Statutory Audit Forensic Audit
1. Objective Express opinion as to ‘true & fair’
presentation.
2. Techniques ‘Substantive’ and ‘compliance’
procedures.
3. Period Normally all transactions for the
particular accounting period.
4. Verification of stock, estimation of
realizable value of current assets,
provisions/ Liability estimation, etc.
Relies on the management certifi-cate/
representation of manage-ment.
5. Off balance-sheet items (like con-tracts
etc.)
Used to vouch the arithmetic accu-racy
& compliance with proce-dures.
6. Adverse findings, if any Negative opinion or qualified
opinion expressed, with/without
quantification.
Detection Techniques
Forensic auditing should focus on significant
transactions – both as reflected in financial statements
and off balance sheet items The techniques mainly are
‘Critical Point Auditing’ and ‘Propriety Auditing’.
(A) Critical Point Auditing: Critical point auditing
technique aims at filtering out the symptoms of fraud
from regular and normal transactions in which they are
mixed or concealed. For this purpose, financial state-ments,
books, records, etc. are analyzed mainly to find
out:
(i) Trend-analysis by tabulating significant financial
transactions
(ii) Unusual debits/credits in accounts normally clos-ing
to credit/debit balances respectively
(iii) Discrepancies in receivable or payable
balances/inventory as evidenced from the non-reconciliation
between financial records and cor-responding
subsidiary records (like physical veri-fication
statement, priced stores ledgers, personal
ledgers, etc.)
(iv) Accumulation of debit balances in loosely con-trolled
accounts (like deferred revenue expendi-ture
accounts, mandatory spares account – capital-ized
as addition to respective machinery item, etc.)
Determine correctness of the
accounts or whether any fraud has
actually taken place.
Analysis of past trend and substan-tive
or ‘in depth’ checking of
selected transactions.
No such limitations. Accounts
may be examined in detail from
the beginning.
Independent verification of sus-pected/
selected items carried out.
Regularity and propriety of these
transactions/contracts are exam-ined.
Legal determination of fraud and
naming persons behind such
frauds.
(v) False credits to boost sales with corresponding
debits to non-existent (dummy) personal accounts
(vi) Cross debits and credits and inter-account transfers
(vii) Weaknesses/inadequacies in internal control/
check systems, like delayed/non-preparation of
bank reconciliation statements, etc.
(B) Propriety Audit: Propriety audit is con-ducted
by Supreme Audit Institutions (SAI) to report
on whether Government accounts, i.e., all expendi-ture
sanctioned and incurred are need-based and all
revenues due to Government have been realized in
time and credited to the government account. In con-ducting
the propriety audit, “Value for Money audit”
technique aims at lending assurance that economy,
efficiency and efficacy have been achieved in the
transactions for which expenditure has been incurred
or revenue collected is usually applied. The same
analogy, with modifications to the principles of pro-priety
of public finance, applies in forensic audit to
establish fraudulent intentions if any, on the part of the
management. Financial frauds are results of wasteful,
unwarranted and unfruitful expenditure or diversion
of funds by the investigated entity to another entity.

Examination methods are:
(a) Tests of reasonableness:
AUDITING
✎ Check weaknesses in internal controls
✎ Identify questionable transactions – indicat-ing
wide fluctuations from the normal ones
and not, in general, related to main objectives.
✎ Review questionable transaction documents
for peculiarities, like improper account, clas-sifications,
pricing, invoicing, or claims, etc.
(b) Historical Comparisons
✎ Develop a profile of the entity under investi-gation,
its personnel and beneficiaries, using
available information.
✎ Identify questionable accounts, account bal-ances,
and relationships between accounts,
for finding out variances from current expec-tations
and past relationships.
✎ Gather and preserve evidence corroborating
asset losses, fraudulent transactions, and
financial misstatements.
Off-Balance Sheet Transactions
There are certain transactions not prima facie dis-cussed
in the financial statements and nor suitable dis-closures
made. Since these are intangible in financial
statement, or auditor may not consider these as signif-icant
or material, no statement/qualification is nor-mally
made in auditors’ report. These may encompass:
Significant purchases/sales of raw materials
and/or finished goods with only a particular dealer
or group companies of such vendor.
Pattern of consumption of major raw
materials/components, indicating excess con-sumption.
Over/under-invoicing for capital goods, raw-materials/
components, services, etc. as compared
to normal arms’ length prices for the same. (both
in related party transactions and in general)
Alteration (amendment and deletion) of contrac-tual
terms, to pass on otherwise accrued benefit, to
holding/group companies.
Diversion of funds through group companies and
setting off such debits as expenditure in accounts
with proper authorization before closure of
accounts to avoid detection.
Cost over–runs in major capital expenditure with-out
corresponding benefit or convincing reasons.
Justifications for non-maintenance of certain
basic records, on technical grounds, but with
intention to defraud.
Aspects to be covered
Objective of forensic audit is to find whether or
not a fraud has taken place. Forensic auditor shall have
to examine voluminous and in totality, records and
witnesses, if permitted by law. Proper documentation
is vital in substantiating the findings. The outcome
shall focus on the following, in case of frauds:
● Proving the loss
● Proving the responsibility for the loss
● Proving the method/motive
● Establishing guilty knowledge
● Identifying other beneficiaries.
Skills for Forensic Audit
(a) Knowledge of entity’s business and legal
environment.
(b) Awareness of computer assisted audit pro-cedures.
(c) Innovative approach and skeptic of routine
audit practices.
Application
Forensic Accounting and Audit may be applied in
the following areas besides fraud detection:
(a) Conducting due-diligence (especially for
segment wise profitability analysis)
(b) Business valuation
(c) Management auditing
(d) Assessing loss before settling insurance
claims.
Case Studies
Excerpts from two cases decided by Board for
Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), for
determining erosion in company’s net worth are really
educative and guide us in application of forensic audit
techniques.
M/s. Vivita Ltd. (Case No.113/2003)
Based on Balance Sheet as on 30th June, 2002,
showing erosion in net worth, Vivita Ltd. filed a refer-ence
U/S 15(1) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special

AUDITING
Provisions) Act, 1985. Secured creditors objected on
the grounds, amongst others, that:
(a) Requisite number of directors did not attend the
meeting of Board of Directors of the company
held to decide on reference to BIFR.
(b) Company indulged in the following:-
● Gave a huge discount of Rs.6.48 crore without any
explanation/justification.
● Company devalued its investments by 90% without
explaining reasons for such a devaluation.
● Company had written off Rs. 3.97 crore on account
of foreign exchange fluctuations.
● Loans and advances had increased by Rs.39.64 crore
without any proper/cogent explanation. It was sus-pected
that these funds had been diverted/siphoned
off to one of the related/or group companies.
● Addition to gross block included Rs.26 lakhs as
land development expenses, actually not incurred,
as per inspection carried out by banks.
● Depreciation increased by Rs.1.84 crore despite a
fall in fixed assets.
● Steep reduction in the sundry debtors during 2001-
02 without any cogent explanation.
● Availed unsecured, secured loans, and increased
drawings from cash credit account, all together to
the extent of Rs 43 crore.
● Profit earned (operating profit) during the previous
year was Rs.12.24 crore on a sale of Rs.96 crore.
However, the company reported a huge loss of
Rs.40 crore on a marginal fall in sales during 2001-
02 to Rs.87 crore.
BIFR observed that the group companies (to
which Vivita belonged) referred to BIFR, though
engaged in different activities, adopted the pattern of
reporting huge losses on slight fall in sales. Marginal
fall in the sales and huge losses accompanied with
large discounts in a single financial year was common
to all the companies.
Vivita’s representations and decision of BIFR are
briefed as under :-
Vivita stated huge discounts were offered to liqui-date
stock, as it feared trademark infringement
proceedings by another company. BIFR did not
accept this as sufficient evidence was not made
available and hence heavy increase in discounts
and losses were not allowed.
Devaluation of investments not admitted as Vivita Ltd
failed to submit copy of B.O.D. resolution to ascertain
whether it was long-term or short-term investment.
Accounting jugglery has been committed, in
respect of accounting for foreign exchange fluctu-ation
on PM, only to make its net-worth nega-tive.
Hence not allowed.
Increase in loans and advances, on the one hand
and sundry creditors/other liabilities, on the other,
could mean a diversion of funds of the company
and increase in losses by providing interest on bor-rowed
funds. For want of complete details, this
issue was kept open.
Explanation of Vivita Ltd as for increase in depre-ciation
was acceptable.
Considering the market practice in the industry of
taking advance from buyers and passing the same
to the suppliers, BIFR noted that selling prices and
the procurement prices are fixed in advance. BIFR
set aside Vivita Ltd’s contention of losses in trad-ing
activities and ruled that losses of the company
were overstated by Rs. 34.61 crore on account of
increase in raw material consumption.
Reduction in sundry debtors could mean diversion
of cash flow as the company did not submit expla-nation.
As to increase in loans, details were not available, but
in case of unsecured loans, BIFR observed that Vivita
Ltd. had given preferential treatment in the payment
of unsecured loans at the cost of secured loans.
Regarding loss of Rs.40 crore on a marginal fall in
the sales, Vivita has not submitted any explanation.
BIFR, re-worked, based on above rulings, the net-worth
to be positive and hence rejected the reference
u/s 15(1).
BIL Industries Ltd. (33/2002)
Reference (third reference) was made u/s 15(1) of
SICA, based on the balance sheet, showing negative
net-worth as on 31st March, 2001 (accumulated
losses, as per audited balance sheet – Rs.121.83 crore
against net-worth of Rs.20.60 crore).
Earlier reference (case no.116/1999) based on its
accounts as on 31st March, 1999 was admitted by
BIFR. However, AAFIR rejected this reference stating
that there was large-scale diversion and siphoning
away of funds by the promoters and glaring discrepan-

AUDITING
cies in accounts of financial year 1998. Second refer-ence
based on balance sheet as on 31st March, 2000
was rejected by BIFR and the AAFIR upheld BIFR’s
decision as “Rs.5519.33 lakhs in financial year 1999
and Rs.674.13 lakhs in financial year 2000, i.e.,
Rs.6193.46 lakhs are not admissible expenses towards
losses. As noticed above, the promoters have siphoned
away the funds of the company to the extent of over
Rs.43 crore in financial year 1999 which they are
liable to restore with interest amounting to Rs.9 crore.
The loss would further get reduced by Rs.9 crore.
These losses to the extent of Rs.7093.46 lakhs would
not count towards the accumulated losses. This leaves
loss of Rs.1768.87 lakhs against net worth of Rs.2060
lakhs”. Net worth thus remains positive.
In this reference, BIFR was informed by secured
creditors that total debt which stood at Rs.48.28 crore
as on 31.3.1998, increased to Rs.138.87 crores as on
31.3.2001. The debt had mainly increased because of
interest, liquidated damages, penal interest etc. If the
company had repaid Rs.43 crore towards its debts dur-ing
1998-99, instead of allowing the promoter to
siphon away these funds, interest burden would not
have been more than Rs.5 crore for the three financial
years 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01.
Thus the interest provision to the extent of Rs.86
crore should be disallowed. If adjustments not allowed
by AAFIR in second reference amounting to Rs.70.93
crore and the interest of Rs.77 crore provided on funds
siphoned away by the promoters, were disallowed, the
net-worth would be positive.
BIFR rejected references made for reasons of
manipulations of accounts.
Conclusion
Forensic auditing combines legalities along-side
the techniques of propriety (VFM audit),
regularity, investigative, and financial audits.
The main aim is to find out whether or not
true business value has been reflected in the
financial statements and whether any fraud
has taken place.
It differs, altogether, in form and content from the
statutory audits of financial statements. It may be ben-eficially
applied in other areas where due diligence
exercise is required to be carried out. ■
Invitation of entries for
ICAI AWARDS FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL
REPORTING FOR THE YEAR 2003-2004
Last date for receipt of entries: 30th September, 2004
With a view to recognise and encourage excellence in the presentation of financial information, the Institute
of Chartered Accountants of India has been holding an annual competition for the ‘ICAI Awards for
Excellence in Financial Reporting’. This competition is a prestigious competition that recognises and hon-ours
the organisations who have achieved excellence in financial reporting. The Competition for the year
2003-04 is being held under three categories, comprising Non-financial enterprises; financial institutions,
banks and financial and insurance companies; and Not-for-Profit Organisations. In each of the categories,
the enterprise whose financial report is adjudged as the best amongst the entries received will be awarded a
Silver Shield and the enterprise(s) whose financial report is adjudged as the next best will be awarded a
Copper Plaque. The Annual Report eligible for this year’s competition should relate to financial year end-ing
on any day between 1st April, 2003 and 31st March, 2004 (both days inclusive).
For details, please visit our Website www.icai.org (heading “Announcements-Members) or contact:
Secretary, Research Committee, The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, Indraprastha Marg, New
Delhi–110002, Phone: 011-2337 8415 (Dir.), 2337 0055 (Ext. 467/458), Fax: 011-2337 9398, 2337 9334,
E-mail: tdte@icai.org. Dr. Anuj Goyal
Chairman, Research Committee

Forensic audit

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Forensic audit (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Forensic audit