Part 1- Introduction The report contains the...
HI6026 Auditing Proof Reading Services and Paper Editing Services
140.2 says that A Member shall maintain confidentiality, including in a social environment, being alert to the possibility of inadvertent disclosure, particularly to a close business associate or a Close or Immediate Family member (Professional Standards Councils, 2001).
It is nowhere mentioned in the code of ethics that one can use client’s information even after removing the references which can relate the information to the client. According to section 140.1.
Though Rodeny tried to preserve client’s confidentiality by removing the client’s references from the information, but sadly it’s not permitted under the law and he breached the above mentioned sections under APES code of ethics for professional accountants.
Section 290.148.1 says that company secretary is an officer under the Corporations act 2001. So no partner or employee of a firm should act as a company secretary for an audit client. If such an individual were to accept such a position the only course of action is for the Firm to refuse to perform, or withdraw from, the Audit Engagement.
But the section 290.149 says that one can perform the routine administrative company secretarial functions for an audit client who will be limited to preparing minutes or preparing statutory returns. And the management will be making all the decisions.
Section 120 of APES code of ethics for professional accountants describes the principle of objectivity under which it is obligatory to all the members not to compromise their professional or business judgement because of bias, conflict of interest or the undue influence of others.
Withdrawing from the Engagement Team. Supervisory procedures. Terminating the financial management or business relationship giving rise to the threat. Discussing the issue with higher levels of management within the firm with those charged with governance of the client (Australian Government Comlaw, 2001).
In the APES code of ethics, it is nowhere mentioned that a firm can’t accept an asset in place of cash as payment which is worth less than the full payment outstanding. So accepting the boat as payment is completely legal. Though section 270 talks about the custody of client assets.