14|...|164
AUTHORITIES DOING NOTHING
On 26.03.20 the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) and the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) were both contacted to advise them that, amongst things, that several of their members, also happen to be business associates/directors of Mesa of Lippl.
Nothing so strange here except that accountants/auditors HULL were engaged to conduct the audit @ Lippl clearly a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest as defined by the FRC--Glossary of terms page 18 of 36... ...
Independence— Freedom from conditions and relationships which, in the context of an engagement, would compromise the integrity or objectivity of the firm or covered persons. Integrity or objectivity (and therefore independence) would be compromised if it is probable (more likely than not) that an objective, reasonable and informed third party would conclude that the threats, arising from any conditions or relationships that exist (taking into account any conflicts of interest that they may cause, or generally be perceived to cause, or otherwise, and having regard to any safeguards implemented), would impair integrity or objectivity to such an extent that it would be inappropriate for the firm to accept or continue to perform the audit or other public interest assurance engagement unless the threats were eliminated or further reduced or unless more, or more effective, safeguards were implemented.
FRC washed their hands of the opportunity to keep the public safe from the seemingly ‘holes in accounts'.
Nor is this the first it seems that this method has been used to ‘keep things between them’ and ‘away from prying eyes’.
The ICAEW gave a reference number—"Our ref:054906”--and said to wait to hear from them.
Nothing been heard from the ICAEW since.
Previously, after reporting the £500k hole in the accounts, and the misrepresentation being confirmed by a forensic accountant and reported on to them, the ICAEW, did nothing about that then either. Seems likely that had the seriousness, the frequency of the ‘misrepresentation and the disregard for the lawful practices been addressed at that time, some of the latest ‘creativity’ would have been prevented.
Similarly, Company X was forced to issue threats before they were able to persuade Mesa that their retaining monies that belonged to the company and not Mesa personally, could have been avoided if the authorities had acted when they were advised of the types of behaviour Mesa was engaging in.
The ‘method’ Mesa uses to avoid the full and proper audit is simple.
Their accountant/auditor ‘business associates’ set up an organisation to practice accountancy and auditing. Mesa ‘engages’ their 'tame auditors sema1’ and 'tame auditors anst 2' to conduct the audit. The audit merely comprises of sending a junior to Lippl; the junior spends a week at Lippl and the sum of their 'audit work' is they obtain a handful of copy invoices before they return to base. The ‘audit’ is signed off by the ‘tame auditors’ as complete and with the benefit of the financial statements signed off without anyone checking the integrity of the them or any of the ‘transactions’ effected by Mesa, Jago, tame auditors or Boss_Jaro.
No-one is any the wiser.
No-one seems to want to address the obvious.
No-one seems willing to get to the bottom of these matters or the matter of Barbara Z Kahan being used to set up companies when all of these "accountants" are capable of setting up companies and have set them up themselves before. Israeli binary options scammers also use 85-year-old-woman-behind-fake-london-firm-addresses-expose-Barbara Kahan
***
|
 | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
|
5
No comments:
Post a Comment