ASSIGNMENT

Auditing & Assurance Assignment

Auditing & Assurance Assignment

Rodney's Brick CaseViolations Rodney Brick, being an audit assistant in the case/question mentioned is accused of violating the fundamental principles quoted in the Section 100.5 of the “Code of Ethics for Professional Accountant” (APES 110 2011, pp.12-13). Brick, as an assistant auditor is suppose to have access to the financial and other related relevant information of a company as stated in Section 312. (Corporations Act 2001) Specifically, Brick has violated Section 140.1(b) of the Accounting Professional & Ethical Standard 110 by using the confidential business information for the sake of accomplishment of his own work and discrediting the source. Being an auditor, he is not supposed to use any kind of financial or any other confidential information obtained in the due process for his own personal gain. Such a situation can also be related to the violation of Section 110 quoting about “integrity” as ruled out in APES 110. It is against the ethics of a professional accountant to use and disclose certain financial information of Daffey Jones Limited for his personal benefit. One cannot disclose any information collected in the process of performing professional services. An exception to it is that such disclosure is not necessitated by any laws or legal regulations. Brick can also be held liable for violating Section 130.3 of APES 110 for not being able to perform his professional duties competently. Working as an audit assistant of an audit firm, Brick should comply with the rules and regulations outlined by the accounting & ethical standards and should act professionally rather copying particular financial information and gaining advantage of it (APES 110 2011, pp.13). Breach of such standards can result in disrepute to the profession as well as such an action can also harm his individual repute. Objectivity principle, stated in Section 120 of APES 110, is violated in a way that using such financial information without evaluating its integrity can cause judgmental bias in forming an audit opinion about the Daffey Jones Limited.

Remedy/Suggestions It is usually advised to obtain prior approval from the Daffey Jones Limited for using their information in order to accomplish his duties. Being a professional, Brick should draft proper approval that can be legally acceptable as evidence later on, if needed. The consent of a firm is very much needed as mentioned in AUST 140.7.1 that, it is strongly recommended obtaining legal advice if prior approval has not been sought. As an audit assistant, Brick should at least take care and abide with these standards and other promulgated laws and regulations affecting an audit. On the part of an audit firm, it shall always ensure that its employees are professionally well-versed, adequately trained and possesses competence before any audit engagements are assigned to them. Doing such so arises self-interest threat and to avoid such threats, proper safeguards like trainings & development should be provided to them.

Bertha Bigga's Audit Engagement: Problems & SolutionViolations The case relates to the “Part B - Members in Public Practice” of ...