Satyam auditing not the only slip-up in India, admits Price Waterhouse India

Five audit firms of Price Waterhouse India have admitted to the US markets regulator, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), that deficiencies in their auditing process were not restricted to Satyam Computer , but extended to other companies audited by them in India as well.

This disclosure by PW India is in two documents released by the SEC on April 5 while concluding its findings on the Satyam accounting fraud case. For five years, between 2004 and 2009, B Ramalinga Raju, disgraced founder and former chairman of Satyam, booked fictitious revenues and inflated bank balances, right under the noses of the auditors from PW India. The main auditing practice in which the SEC found PW India auditors to be lax relates to not directly confirming cash balances with banks, but instead relying on documents supplied by the company.

Satyam overstated its cash balances with banks by nearly $1 billion without being detected by PW India's auditors. "Respondents failed to exercise appropriate professional scepticism," the SEC said. After the Satyam fraud was unearthed, PW India reviewed its other companies for similar deviations, according to disclosures made by the audit firm to the SEC. It is not known how many clients PW India audited or whether it found similar deviations. PW India declined to participate in the story.

Instead, a PW India spokeswoman referred to a press release issued by the audit firm in the aftermath of the SEC findings. In the release, PW India said it "neither admits nor denies the US regulators' findings", while agreeing to pay the $7.5-million penalty demand raised against it. In a related development, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) - the Indian accounting regulator that has largely been a bystander in the whole matter - has sent notices to PW India audit firms. "Price Waterhouse has paid the fine as a firm," says G Ramaswamy , president of ICAI.

"So, we have asked all PW firms to explain the order." Under the ICAI Act, a firm doesn't register with the institute, its partners do. The ICAI, therefore, can initiate action only against the partners , not against the firm that employs them. The two PW India partners who had approved Satyam's cooked books, Srinivas Talluri and Subramani Gopalakrishnan, are in jail.

Wrong Number

Five audit firms of PW India have told the US SEC that deficiencies in their auditing extended to other companies, besides Satyam

Check Mate

After Satyam fraud, PW India reviewed its other firms. It's not known how many clients PW India audited or if it found similar deviations

Taking Note

ICAI has sent notices to PW India audit firms asking them to explain the order

ICAI's Probe Stuck for a Year

The ICAI's own investigations against the two PW India partners have been stuck for about a year. The two PW India partners filed a case in Delhi High Court, asking the ICAI to stop proceedings because the Central Bureau of Investigation was pursuing a criminal case against PW India. Under the ICAI Act, the maximum fine payable by a partner is Rs 5 lakh and the maximum penalty is termination of membership.

On the cash balance issue, PW India partners told the SEC that client involvement in the confirmation process was the norm in India because banks here rarely respond to requests sent by auditors. Three of the four auditors that ET spoke to iterated that view. So did the chief financial officer of a large manufacturing firm. "Usually, we get confirmation from the banks in a sealed envelope, and hand it over to the auditors," he said, not wanting to be identified. Bankers, however, refute this.

"The normal practice is for companies to write to banks requesting them to directly confirm the balance to the auditors," said S Rajendran, GM (risk management), Union Bank of India . "Information is sent directly by the bank to a company auditor," said MD Mallya, CMD of Bank of Baroda. Between 2004 and 2009, Satyam overstated its cash balance with Bank of Baroda by between $57 million and $358 million. ICAI's Ramaswamy said the institute has asked the Reserve Bank of India to instruct banks to respond to confirmation requests from auditors. "As per the current banking norms, banks don't share information without the consent of clients," he says. "Usually, companies give a standing order to banks asking them to give information to external auditors."

Source: www.economictimes.indiatimes.com

Thanks & Regards,
Maulik Doshi

DENIP Consultants Pvt. Ltd.