- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 6 years ago by
.
- Posts
As far as I am aware, one of the safeguard to intimidation threat is to discussing the issues with those charged with governance and audit committee of the clients.
However, I do not understand that suggest on the safeguard indicated in the answer of the Question 4 – Peaches of BPP Revision Kit:
“There may, for instance, be a specific mode of recourse available through the individual regulatory framework that the auditor is operating in.”
In addition, will the overdue fee (which is of significance) give rise to intimidation threat in addition to self interest as I understand that intimidation threat is the situation where the auditor is deterred from conducting audit with objectivity and independence.
This Q is taken from December 2009. The published answer says:
“In some jurisdictions, the regulatory framework provides a specific safeguard in the case of being intimidated with dismissal, as usually it is only the shareholders and not the
management of an entity that can remove the auditor from office.”
So, for example, in the UK, the auditor would be able to speak and be heard at the GM at which their removal is proposed. The auditor would also be required to make a “statement of circumstances” (or that there are no circumstances) in which they could make known a significant intimidation threat.
All the “threats” are threats to the fundamental principles in which objectivity is particularly important. Overdue fees is a financial interest which is generally classified as a self-interest threat (is assumed) rather than intimidation, which intimidation could also arise (but wouldn’t be assumed).
- The topic ‘Intimidation threat – Peaches of BPP Revision Kit’ is closed to new replies.