Fraud and the Auditor
$19.95 Buy and instantly download this paper now
This paper examines the changes that have arisen from the introduction of SAS 82 in the audit framework and explains the difference between reasonable and an absolute assurance. The paper then discusses how SAS 82 may not be as good as some commentators had hoped, although it does give a much clearer definition of the duties of the auditor, and lays down a framework for them to follow specifically aimed at detecting material fraud. The paper concludes that there are still some shortfalls in SAS 82, but it is a step in the right direction.
From the Paper:"The problem with the perception of the auditors is that there is an expectation gap, the expectations of the general public and even the shareholders perceive the duties of the audit as reaching further than they actually do. In a company receiving the OK from an auditor than the public may be reassured that all is well with the company, and this may not be the case. In recognising this problem it can be seen that SAS 82 has at least addressed some of the issues that are raised by this expectation gap. This cannot change the public expectation, and it does not change the responsibility of the auditor, looking only to assess the accuracy of the accounts and only detect fraud if it is material. However, there is a greater level of clarification given by SAS 82, and there are some new performance standards to ensure that the role of the auditor and level of performance is clearer. In turn this should lead to better fraud detection in audits."
Cite this Term Paper:
Fraud and the Auditor (2003, October 01) Retrieved February 03, 2023, from https://www.academon.com/term-paper/fraud-and-the-auditor-33227/
"Fraud and the Auditor" 01 October 2003. Web. 03 February. 2023. <https://www.academon.com/term-paper/fraud-and-the-auditor-33227/>