AHTC's lawyer has tried to hide distract persuade the public justify WP's illogical choices of accountants by saying there's "nothing suspicious about the selection process so far" and that this is all "water under the bridge"
wow.. this week has been a really
Then on 22 Jan'16, WP / AHTC told the court that Business Assurance had pulled out citing “intense media scrutiny”, calls from concerned clients and lead accountant Alex Chai’s reluctance to publicise a review by the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA).
Better yet, did you realize that AHTC's lawyer Mr Peter Low had applied for ACRA’s PMP documents to not be released to the public?
Why is there a need to do this? Is this information such a big secret? Where's the transparency that WP keeps on harping on about?
In any case, the Courts gave AHTC until 22 Jan'16 to settle the appointment of an Accountant.
CJ Menon concluded his session saying: “If by (Friday) the matter has not been resolved by agreement, we will make a final decision on whether to receive the evidence of the ACRA representative as well as on the appointment of a suitable firm of accountants.”
Guess what happened on Friday (22 Jan'16)'s hearing. AHTC put forward their choice of Accountants as "Ardent Accounting" with Mr Kelvin Thio and Mr Terence Ng to undertake the work required.
Mr (Peter) Low said Mr Thio and Mr Ng were both chartered accountants, have forensic experience in accounting and litigation support, have acted as expert witnesses, are members of Chartered Certified Accountants and also have law degrees.
Sounds good right?
But then it turns out that Mr Thio and Mr Ng do not have licences to conduct regulatory audit. This is what AHTC's lawyer said:
“The licences of Mr Thio and Mr Ng are not for regulatory audit - they do not conduct audits and are not subject to PMP so that’s their position,” explained Mr Low. “My submission is this is up to HDB’s consent, if they don’t, it’s unreasonable.”
Why the heck on earth does AHTC want to appoint Accountants that DO NOT CONDUCT AUDITS ?? HOW IS THAT REASONABLE??
This whole sage is all about Accounts that cannot be verified; Transactions that cannot be validated or backed up with paperwork. And then AHTC wants people who are not qualified with regulatory audit to do the work?!?
Common sense will tell you that this is a damn stupid move on AHTC's part. As HDB's lawyer Aurill Kam puts it:
Ms Kam also questioned AHTC’s desire to appoint “the most suited and qualified person for the job”, asking: “Why have we spent two weeks looking for nominees that appear not to have met standards?
“This all shows a lack of proper process and due care in selecting accountants; a lack of judgment and if that is their approach then one has to ask what process did they follow even in putting up this third set of nominees,”
Ms Kam continued. “They say the choice of accountants lies with them. But… we submit there is no assurance there were proper checks carried out in relation to the latest nomination of Ardent.”
I guess even the Judge must have had enough of this time-wasting nonsense from WP. This was what was concluded on 22 Jan'16 by the Court.
In his closing judgment, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon noted that “the task to be undertaken by the accountants appointed should not be underestimated” and that “members of the team of the third nomination do not have licenses of public accountants”.
“HDB contends that they need more time to assess the team,” he said. “But this being a matter of public interest, and public funds should not be delayed further, and a process which has been without success cannot continue indefinitely... the concern should be to appoint an accountant who manifestly has the ability, experience and resources to complete the task.”
Concluded CJ Menon: “We direct the town council to appoint a team of qualified accountants from one of the ‘Big 4’ accounting firms – namely Pricewaterhousecoopers, Deloitte, KPMG, Ernst & Young – within two weeks, in order to undertake the identified tasks.”
In closing, Mr Low applied for ACRA’s PMP documents to not be released to the public, to which the court agreed to put in place an interim sealing order, subject to HDB’s submission to unseal the documents.
Questions that needs answering
- Why does AHTC's Lawyer wants to prevent the ACRA's PMP documents from being released to the public?
- Why does AHTC insists on using relatively unknown and unsuitably qualified Accountants such as their latest choice of Ardent Accounting instead of the Big Four to audit its accounts?
- Why does AHTC keep avoiding using one of the Big Four when HDC has already offered to bear any additional cost of appointing one of the Big Four?
- Why did AHTC's original choice Business Assurance not only withdrew from this new audit task but also ended all engagements with WP, and gave their reasons as "in part due to "intense media scrutiny" and calls from concerned clients as well as Mr Alex Chai - lead accountant at Business Assurance - receiving “a certain rating” by the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) and not wanting “to make it public”.
- Why did MRI Moores Rowland, appointed on 11 Jan'16, chose to withdraw at such late notice on 19 Jan'16 on the eve of the Court session on 20 Jan'16 WITHOUT providing any explanation in such a high profile case?
Notes:
The Practice Monitoring Programme (PMP) review is a regulatory instrument used by the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (Acra) to ensure that certain qualities and standards are met by auditors.
No comments:
Post a Comment