印度软件巨头：萨蒂扬Satyam Computer Services Limited， 5年连续会计舞弊金额超过10亿美元，从2003年开始的大约5年时间里，萨蒂扬通过伪造7561张发票来夸大其营收。这是印度近年来最大的金融丑闻之一。
因为假账，该公司被SEC罚款1000万美元，并被要求整改；2011年，在美国股东集体诉讼中， 该公司同意赔偿股东损失1.25亿美元。其公司高管于2015年被判刑入狱。
公司的外部审计师普华永道也因此被拖累。 SEC和PCAOB 对普华永道印度做出处罚，总的最终罚款高达750万美元。此外，普华永道也成为美国的股东集体诉讼被告之一，最终和解赔偿2550万美元。所以，就这个案件，普华永道印度在美国的总赔偿金额高达3300万美元。
萨蒂扬假账案件对普华永道印度的影响很大，而且持续数年，普华永道新CEO 在接受媒体采访的时候指出： 该所经过数年的努力才走出萨蒂扬案的阴影。
普华永道除了在美国遭受相关处罚之外，印度监管部门也启动对该所调查，而且这个调查持续数年。
而刚刚，这个调查和处罚结果出来了：
2018年1月11日，据英国《金融时报》报道，印度证券监管机构已禁止普华永道为该国上市公司提供审计服务，这一禁令将于3月底生效，有效期为两年。
此举是对普华永道未能发现已破产的萨蒂扬涉案金额超过10亿美元的会计欺诈行为的惩罚。
印度证券交易委员会在一份长达108页的报告中指出，这一欺诈案之所以直到2009年才被发现，是因为当时为萨蒂扬担任审计工作的普华永道“未独立核查银行月结单的真实性，”对该公司财务报表中的“明显异常”没有进行认真检查。普华永道对该公司的审计疏忽大意 (negligence)
除了吊销上市公司审计资格外，印度证券交易委员会还责令普华永道退回1.3亿卢比（约合200万美元）的非法所得。普华永道表示，对这一决定深感失望，并将在3月底禁令生效之前寻求暂停执行，因为该禁令与此前印度最高法院的一项命令相违背。
这个处罚对普华永道印度而言是致命的，上市公司审计业务是四大所最为核心的业务，不仅是收入的主要来源，更是四大所发挥社会影响力的公信力体现的主要内容。如果这个处罚付诸实施，那么会导致普华永道印度的上市公司客户流失，四大所其他三家可能会是最大的渔翁得利者。不过，这是否会影响普华永道对印度在美国上市公司（非印度本地上市公司）审计业务，报道中并没有明确指出。
《华尔街日报》今天发表文章再次关注审计师的公信力和投资者期待之间存在巨大差异。资本市场不断爆出的财务丑闻，导致会计师行业面临巨大压力。
金融时报的原文如下：
PwC hit with 2-year India audit ban for Satyam case
India's securities regulator has banned the global accountancy firm PwC from auditing listed companies in the country for two years, after it failed to spot a $1.7bn fraud at the now defunct Satyam Computer Services.
In a 108-page report, the Securities and Exchange Board of India said Price Waterhouse — PwC’s Indian audit unit — had neglected to check “glaring anomalies” in the financial details reported by Satyam, whose downfall followed one of the worst financial scandals in Indian corporate history.
For about five years beginning in 2003, Sebi said, Satyam inflated its revenue by accounting for 7,561 fake invoices. The fraud persisted in part because Satyam’s auditor, PwC, “did not independently check the veracity of the monthly bank statements”.
It relied upon assurances from Satyam “without any further examination or inquiry into the matter and ignored the balance confirmations received directly from banks which were showing true balances”, the report said.
As well as the auditing suspension, Sebi ordered PwC to disgorge wrongful gains of about Rs130m ($2m).
PwC said “there has been no intentional wrongdoing by [PwC] firms in the unprecedented management perpetrated fraud at Satyam”, and that it had strengthened its processes since the scandal broke.
It added that it was “disappointed” and would seek a stay on the order before it became effective at the end of March, on the grounds that it was out of line with a prior High Court order.
According to an analysis by India’s Economic Times newspaper last June, PwC had audit mandates from 43 of India’s 500 most valuable listed companies, including Tata Steel, United Spirits and financial group IDFC. This was the lowest figure among the so-called Big Four global accountancy firms. Deloitte had the highest number of mandates at 89.
PwC’s ability to audit the unlisted subsidiaries of multinational companies — a significant part of its business — is not affected by the ban.
The regulator's move against PwC is the latest aftershock from a scandal that imposed heavy losses on investors, and shook the reputation of an IT industry widely considered more transparent than more traditional sectors in India.
In 2009 Ramalinga Raju, Satyam's then chairman, admitted to overstating the company's cash balance by $1bn, as well as exaggerating the company's headcount by 13,000. “It was like riding a tiger, not knowing when to get off without being eaten,” he wrote of the growing deception. The company later admitted that the total irregularities amounted to $1.7bn.
Satyam was sold in 2012 to rival Tech Mahindra, which dropped the company’s brand. Raju received a seven-year jail sentence in April 2015, one of four Satyam executives to be convicted in connection with the fraud.
Sebi had previously issued fines worth $291m to the former executives.
In its ruling on PwC, Sebi said it was incumbent upon it to take a “stern view of market abuse and fraudulent practices, particularly when persons tasked with protecting the interest of investors are themselves hand-in-glove with the main perpetrators of the fraud”.
本文来源泽稷网校【微信公众号：泽稷ACCA考友论坛、ACCA学习号】ID：zejiacca，需要ACCA全套备考资料的可关注一下，免费赠送的。内有ACCAF1—P7全套通关资料+学霸考经+考试资讯+财会书籍+英语学习资源+中英文简历模板，还能加入ACCA14门全科考试答疑互助QQ群(197235470/551426317)，全球ACCAer前辈们帮你免费答疑。
网友评论