The Treasury increased the volume of scheduled inspections of audit organizations in 2023
[ad_1]
The Federal Treasury (FC) told auditors that it plans to expand the number of scheduled inspections in 2023. According to market participants, this will lead to additional burden and costs for companies, which will affect the price of the audit, although it may improve its quality. At the same time, the auditors still have a number of serious questions regarding the conduct of audits, which the FC has not yet resolved.
The Treasury has increased the volume of scheduled audits of audit organizations in 2023, said the managing partner of Marillion (included in the top 10 audit groups, according to RAEX in 2022) Polina Viksne on Thursday at the conference “Audit and consulting + assessment: trends, forecasts, half year results. “According to the plans of the Treasury, nine of the top 10 audit organizations will be audited in 2023, while last year only six. If we talk about audit organizations from the top 30, then in the plans of the Treasury for 2023 to audit 80% of organizations. In 2022, the plans were to check 50% of the top thirty companies, ”she specified.
The Treasury did not answer Kommersant’s questions.
According to experts, the expansion of inspections is primarily due to changes in legislation.
The new rules require an annual audit of audit firms whose clients are banks, financial market participants and other publicly significant organizations (OGOs), while according to the previous rules, such an audit was carried out once every three years, explains B1 partner Igor Buyan.
Ms. Viksne believes that the increase in the number of scheduled audits of the treasury indicates “increased attention to audit organizations.” Another reason for the increase in inspections is customer complaints, says Ilya Zharsky, managing partner of the Veta expert group.
Olga Komissarova, General Director of Pacioli, notes that, according to the company’s experience, now during treasury inspections, much attention is paid to the compliance of audit organizations with the requirements of anti-money laundering legislation (AML / CFT). The plans of the Treasury indicate another tightening of requirements and control over the quality of services provided by auditors, Mr. Zharsky believes.
Market participants believe that more frequent inspections are fraught with negative consequences for companies. Passing inspections requires significant time and human resources, which leads to an increase in the costs of the audited organization and, as a result, to an increase in the cost of services, emphasizes Ms. Komissarova.
The diversion of more resources to audits with strong price competition between audit firms leads to “risks of unfair competition by deviating from standards in auditing or to an excessive burden on staff, which also ultimately leads to a decrease in the quality of audit services in the future,” adds Ms. Viksne.
The advantages of the attention of the FC include the fact that the audit contributes to “maintaining the level of quality of audit services,” market participants admit. However, they, for their part, raise a number of questions to the Treasury.
“The main question that market participants have for FC today is the timing of decision-making on an audit that has already been carried out. Today they have not been installed, so audit companies cannot plan their activities normally after the audit,” says Elena Mezhueva, managing partner of Balance Group. Another issue that needs clarification is the criteria for determining which companies are SBOs for the purposes of auditing and oversight by the treasury. For example, it is believed that companies with a state share in the authorized capital are considered to be OZOs, but in practice there are many variations, and this creates confusion, she notes.
Market participants believe that a dialogue is needed with regulators and supervisory authorities so that compliance can be ensured by audit as a business, taking into account regulators’ priorities.
[ad_2]
Source link
