Case discover and document to regulators a dishonorable

Case 1: Prince Jefri Bolkiah V KPMG London (1999)In 1983, Brunei Investment Agency (BIA) become created to keep and manage the general reserve fund of the Government of Brunei and all external belongings and to offer the Government with money control offerings. KPMG act as an auditor of a affluence of a BIA’s asset and investment portfolios.

In the meantime, they accomplished positive related advisory and consultancy work. On February 1997, Prince Jefri Bolkiah resigned from Minister of Finance of Brunei and on July 16, 1998 and had removed by way of Sultan of Brunei as Chairman of BIA.July 1996, Bolkiah propose KPMG to provides services on a personal matter and to act as an expert witness for a ‘Project Lucy’ require a very detailed inquiry into the financial affairs and dealings with Bolkiah. The project had a settlement by 14 March 1998 of the litigation the Inland Revenue served notices under Section 20B(1) of the Taxes Management Act 1970.In June 1998, KPMG was command through The House to analyze ‘Project Gemma’ the whereabouts of property counselled to had been utilized by Prince Jefri for his personal benefit on behalf of BIA. KPMG had installed the Chinese Wall for both Project Lucy and Project Gemma by isolating the projects indifference team members and places to avoid the possession from the previous project.The issue arises in this proceeding is related to conflict of interest and confidentiality. In confidentiality, even though KPMG did not use or disclose any information that had been pledge about Bolkiah’s matters related to Project Lucy to the third party, physical segregation would probably insufficient where the wall was erected within a single department.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Meanwhile, conflicts of interest also may arise towards KPMG due to bound by the same duties for both projects. This such action put both of the clients in a risk and threaten their confidential information. Hence, an injunction had been granted by The House towards KPMG’s actions.Case 2: Moore Stephens v. Stone & Rolls Limited (2009) Moore Stephens (The Auditor) became brought to a lawsuit in December 2006 in the industrial courtroomagainst Stone & Rolls restricted (The Company) indict for been negligent in undertaking The Company’s audit within the 12 months 1996, 1997 and 1998.

The Auditor turned into claimed for breach of obligation to act with reasonable talents and care in failing to discover and document to regulators a dishonorable scheme this is perpetuated through Mr. Zvonko Stojevic who’s sole directing thoughts and could and the useful owner of The Company use the organisation as his car of defrauding Komercni Bank SA.A fraud discover leads The Company to fall into liquidation. The Company providing to bank false report with the aid of received fee below letters of credit score sum of USD100million. The bank successfully sued The Company and Mr.

Stojevic but they do not manage to pay back and fall into liquidation. The liquidator turned the attention towards The Auditor. They representing The Company and brought up professional negligence against them for just under USD174million. The Auditor uses the doctrine of ‘ex turpi causa non oritur actio’ which an action may not be founded on illegality but the application was failed and then he appeals to the Court of Appeal.

The Company strike-out to the House of Lord but The Auditor application’s accepted. The Company had to accept that Mr. Stojevic perpetrated the fraud.   The Company liability for the fraudulent fraud was only secondary not primarily on the basis and according to previous legal authority, The Company argue that The Auditor could not rely on ‘ex turpi causa’ to strike-out its claim. In a decision to dismiss the appeal, the House of Lords acknowledges The Company and Mr.

Stojevic were in the same circumstances because there is no other party related to The Company. Hence, both of the parties were liable primarily and The Auditor entitled to use the doctrine of ‘ex turpi causa’. House of Lords confirms The Auditor was not liable for the fraudulent act of Mr.



I'm William!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out