Nội dung toàn văn Decision No. 03/2014/QD-KTNN promulgating the state auditing standard No.40 quality control
THE STATE AUDIT OFFICE
THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM
Hanoi, July 15, 2014
PROMULGATING THE STATE AUDITING STANDARD NO.40 – QUALITY CONTROL
THE STATE AUDITOR GENERAL
Pursuant to the Law on the State Audit;
Pursuant to the Resolution of the Standing Committee of the National Assembly No. 916/2005/NQ-UBTVQH11 dated September 15, 2005 on the organization structure of the State Audit;
Pursuant to the Resolution of the Standing Committee of the National Assembly No. 917/2005/NQ-UBTVQH11 dated September 15, 2005 on providing Regulations on the procedure for establishment and introduction of the State Auditing Standards;
At the request of the Director of Audit Policy and Audit Quality Control Department and the Director of the Legal Affair Department,
Article 1. The State auditing standard No. 40 – Quality control is issued together with this Decision.
Article 2. This Decision shall come into force after 45 days from the signing date and replace the standard No. 08 issued together with the Decision No. 06/2010/QĐ-KTNN of the State Auditor General dated November 9, 2010 on promulgating the State auditing standards.
Article 3. Heads of affiliates of the State Audit Office, organizations and individuals concerned, shall be responsible for implementing this Decision./.
THE STATE AUDITOR GENERAL
THE STATE AUDITING STANDARD NO.40 – QUALITY CONTROL
(Issued together with the Decision No. 03/2014/QĐ-KTNN of the State Auditor General dated July 15, 2014)
Definition and basis for the standard establishment
1. This Standard shall provide principles and guidelines for establishment and maintenance of the system for audit quality control activities performed by the State Audit Office.
2. This Standard is developed on the basis of the Law on State Audit, the international standard of the Supreme Audit Institutions in terms of the quality control (ISSAI 40) introduced by the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions in conformity with the functions, duties and operational conditions of the State Audit Office.
Purpose of this standard
3. This Standard is developed in order to ensure that the audit quality control system is maintained to manage risks, assure the quality of audit engagements and continue to enhance the confidence and assurance in the work performed by the State Audit Office.
4. This Standard shall help the State Audit Office achieve the reasonable guarantee that:
(i) The State Audit Officer and the auditor, other entities involved in the work of the State Audit Office are complying with the Constitution, the Law on State Audit, professional standards and applicable laws;
(ii) Audit reports published by the State Audit Office shall be appropriate to specific situations.
5. This Standard shall provide the instructional framework based on which regulations and instructions on the audit quality control are set out.
Scope of application
6. This Standard shall apply to control of the quality of audit operations and activities relating to the work of the State Audit Office; all audits performed by the State Audit Office; auditors and those involved in the audit activities of the State Audit Office.
Principles for using terms in this Standard
7. Terms used herein shall be defined consistently with those used in State auditing standards adopted by the State Audit Office.
CONTENTS OF STANDARDS
8. The audit quality control system shall include six elements:
(i) Leadership responsibilities for audit quality control;
(ii) Ethical requirements;
(iii) Requirements for initiation of audits;
(iv) Human resources;
(v) Performance of audits;
Leadership responsibilities for audit quality control
9. The State Audit Office shall establish policies and procedures for quality control on the basis of guaranteeing, maintaining and improving the quality of performance of their assigned tasks with the aim of promoting an internal culture recognizing that quality is essential in performing all of its work. The State Auditor General shall be responsible for establishing and maintaining the audit quality control system, promulgating and implementing quality control policies and procedures.
10. The State Auditor General shall take responsibility to direct the entire quality control system developed by the State Audit Office.
11. Heads of affiliates shall be responsible for consultation, assist the State Auditor General in setting, providing guidance on, managing and examining the implementation of standards, principles and other regulations on audit quality control.
12. Affiliates or individuals charged with the duty to audit quality control by the State Auditor General must have sufficient and appropriate competence and experience as well as necessary powers to assume such duty.
13. Heads of affiliates of the State Audit Office shall be responsible for managing quality control activities that may take place in audits led by these affiliates and other relevant assigned duties.
14. The Head of the Audit Workgroup shall be responsible for managing its operations concerning the quality control and take its responsibility for the quality of its audits.
15. The Head of the Audit Workgroup shall manage and take responsibility for the quality control activities of the Workgroup within its delegated authority and assigned duty.
16. The auditor and other entities involved in audits shall be responsible for the quality of their work as assigned and be required to comply with policies and procedures designed to control the quality of audits performed by the State Audit Office. The State Audit Office should encourage communicating viewpoints or issues relating to the audit quality control and feedbacks on the quality control system.
Strengthening the internal culture of audit quality
17. The State Audit Officer should design policies and procedures to strengthen the culture of recognition and reward offered to the work that reaches the high quality level. In order to create such culture, the Head must place emphasis on the importance of quality in all audit engagements, including those performed by outsiders, through their clear, consistent and regular actions and messages. Such actions and messages must emphasize established policies and procedures for audit quality control and conform to the following requirements:
(i) Carry out the work in conformity with the professional standard and other applicable laws.
(ii) Release audit reports appropriate to specific circumstances.
These actions and messages must be specified in the action strategy, documents providing directions or guidelines, and communicated within training courses, seminars, meetings, conferences, workshops, newspapers and magazines of the State Audit Office. The State Audit Office should integrate these actions and messages into procedures for evaluation of its officials or staff which can support and reinforce their attitudes towards the importance of the audit quality and approaches to achieving the specified quality standard.
18. In order to strengthen the internal culture relating to the audit quality, it is critically important that the Head must recognize that the audit quality assurance must be given the top priority in the developmental strategy and all audits performed by the State Audit Office. The Head must have exemplary behaviors towards the internal culture of audit quality. In order to strengthen the internal culture of quality, the following steps must be taken:
(i) Establish policies and procedures to evaluate the auditor’s performance, and provide welfare and advancement opportunity for the auditor in order to prove that the quality is the top priority of the State Audit Office;
(ii) Delegate authority so that material benefits do not cause any impact on the quality of the work performed;
(iii) Provide sufficient resources necessary to establish and enforce quality control policies and procedures in order to maintain the audit quality control system.
19. Quality control policies and procedures must be published and communicated in a sufficient and explicit manner to the auditor and other entities involved in all audits performed by the State Audit Office.
20. The State Audit Office should establish policies and procedures so as to ensure that the auditor and other entities involved in all audits comply with ethical requirements.
21. Ethical requirements must be observed during the process of implementing the audit duties of the State Audit Office.
22. All auditors and other entities involved in all audits must meet ethical requirements for carrying out their work.
23. Ethical requirements include regulations laid down in SAS 30 – Code of Ethical Conducts, applicable laws on ethical conducts and behaviors of officials, public servants as well as other relevant regulations adopted by the State Audit Office.
24. Leadership of the State Audit Office and the leadership of affiliates, Audit Workgroup or Team, must have exemplary attitudes towards professional ethics.
25. The State Audit Office must provide policies and procedures to apply principles of SAS 30 – Code of professional ethics, including:
(i) Integrity, independence and objectivity;
(ii) Professional knowledge, capability and skills;
(iii) Professional discretion and secrecy;
(iv) Recruitment and career development.
26. Interested parties when executing the contract with the State Audit Office must comply with the regulation on professional secrecy set out by the State Audit Office and other relevant regulations.
27. Recruitees should be committed to complying with ethical requirements after being recruited to the State Audit Office.
28. The State Audit Office should specify policies and procedures to notify the competent person of any violation against professional ethics in order to help the State Auditor General take appropriate measures to handle such violation in a timely manner.
29. The State Audit Office must ensure policies and procedures are in place to maintain independence of the State Auditor General, leaders at all levels, auditors and other entities involved in audits conducted by the State Audit Office.
30. These policies and procedures are aimed at:
(i) Communicating the independence requirements to auditors and other interested entities;
(ii) Identifying and assessing circumstances, relationships which can pose a threat to independence and taking appropriate measures to eliminate or restrict such threat to the acceptably lowest degree.
31. Such policies and procedures must meet the following requirements:
(i) The Head of the affiliate in charge of the audit must be provided with necessary information concerning that audit in order to evaluate the general influence over the independence requirements;
(ii) Auditors must notify the Head of the affiliate in charge of the audit of circumstances and threats posed to the independence in order to find suitable approaches;
(iii) The Head of the affiliate in charge of the audit must collect and communicate information to relevant auditors in order to:
. Determine whether independence requirements have been met;
. Maintain and update documentation relating to independence;
. Take suitable approaches to identified threats to the independence which can cause greater impact than acceptable.
32. In order to minimize the risk that auditors may be familiar to audited entities which can breach the independence and objectivity during the audit process, the State Audit Office should set out policies on change to work positions of key officials and auditors.
Requirements for initiation of audits
33. The State Audit Office shall develop policies and procedures to ensure that an audit is performed only if the following requirements are met:
(i) The affiliate in charge of such audit is competent to perform the audit engagement and has the capabilities, including time and resources, to do so;
(ii) This affiliate complies with ethical requirements;
(iii) The State Audit Office has considered the integrity of this affiliate and adopted measures to manage risks which may impact the audit quality.
Professional competence and capability (including time and resources)
34. In order to evaluate the professional competence and capability (including time and resources) to conduct an audit, the following elements should be taken into consideration:
(i) Expertise in its professional and operational extent or other relevant issues;
(ii) The audited entity’s knowledge about legal regulations and relevant reporting requirements, or auditor’s capability of achieving such knowledge and skills in an efficient manner;
(iii) A sufficient number of qualified and competent personnel;
(iv) When necessary, experts must be available;
(v) Personnel’s conformity with competence criteria and requirements for the audit quality control review;
(vi) Possibility of completing an audit by the deadline.
35. When facing with restricted resources, the State Audit Office must develop the work order priority system so as to ensure that the function and duty of the affiliate in charge of an audit are performed and the audit quality is maintained. In the event of insufficient resources resulting in any risk to the audit quality, relevant affiliates must report to the State Auditor General.
36. The State Audit Office should develop policies and procedures designed to formulate the annual audit plan based on the function, duty and capability (including time and resources). Such policies and procedures must provide specific provisions on collection of information about the audited entity. An audit shall be performed only when related risks have been completely evaluated and managed, and the State Auditor General has approved that audit plan.
The integrity of the audited entity
37. With regard to the integrity of the audited entity, the following issues should be taken into consideration:
(i) Identities of the leader of the audited entity;
(ii) Operational characteristics of the audited entity;
(iii) Information about the standpoints of the audited entity’s leader relating to issues such as compliance with the accounting standards and internal control environment;
(iv) Consideration of attitudes and responses of the audited entity to an audit;
(v) Signs of intentional restriction to information provided by the audited entity;
(vi) Signs of the audited entity’s getting involved in illegal activities.
38. Information about the integrity of the audited entity may be collected by:
(i) Communicating with the governing body, inspecting agency and third party such as bank, lawyer and other entities operating in the same sector as the audited entity;
(ii) Looking for relevant data.
39. In case there is any suspicion as to the integrity of the audited entity, the State Audit Office must consider and evaluate risks probably incurred from the competence of officials, public servants, staff, resources and any ethical issues concerning the audited entity.
Information update and risk management
40. Maintenance and update of the system of information about the audited entity and risk assessment for the purpose of selecting the audited entity must be carried out.
41. All procedures for risk management during the task performance process must be designed and implemented. The risk minimization method may include:
(i) Determine the extent of work performed in a discreet manner;
(ii) Assign work to more experienced persons in unusual circumstances;
(iii) Enhance inspection and supervision of the work performed before releasing audit reports.
42. The State Audit Office should design policies and procedures to review and assess risks to the audit quality which may be incurred from the audit engagement in all audits.
43. The State Audit Office must publicly state reasons for performance of approved audits.
44. The State Audit Office should develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure that human forces are sufficient, have great competence and capability as well as undertake to comply with ethical requirements in order to:
(i) Carry out the work in conformity with the professional standard and other applicable laws;
(ii) Release audit reports appropriate to specific circumstances.
45. In order to ensure that its professional skills and capabilities are suitable for performing the work, the State Audit Office should take advantage of a variety of human resources, including outside experts. The State Audit Office must adopt policies and procedures which ensure that outside individuals and organizations must have appropriate competence in performing the audit engagements.
46. The State Audit Office should develop policies and procedures which ensure that each of their affiliates and individuals involved in an audit must be assigned clear and sufficient duties.
47. In order to assure the audit quality and comply with ethical requirements, the State Audit Office should adopt polices and procedures concerning human resources, including:
(ii) Work performance evaluation;
(iii) Ability to take on such duties (including time of completion of assigned work in conformity with required quality standard);
(iv) Professional competence;
(v) Professional and career improvement and development;
(vi) Advancement opportunity;
(vii) Welfare policies;
(viii) Personnel need estimate.
48. The professional competence may be improved by employing different methods, including:
(i) Train all auditors in professional knowledge, professional ethics and audit independence;
(ii) Provide them with updated knowledge;
(iii) Organize conferences, training courses and share work experience with one another;
(iv) Provide instructions from more experienced staff.
49. Maintaining the auditor’s professional competence in an acceptable standard shall much rely on the frequency of knowledge update. Policies and procedures for professional competence improvement must emphasize the necessity of regular training given to all auditors; essential resources and assistance must be provided in order for these auditors to maintain and improve their professional competence and skills.
50. The State Audit Office must strengthen study and training amongst the staff of auditors in order to encourage their career development and ensure that the given training may be appropriate to their career development.
51. The State Audit Office shall define polices and procedures which ensure that auditors and other outside entities participating in audits must have sufficient knowledge about the operational environment of the State Audit Office and get thorough understanding of their assigned tasks.
52. The work quality and compliance with ethical requirements are the main indicators for assessment of performance of auditors and outside entities involved in audits of the State Audit Office.
53. The State Audit Office should design policies and procedures to clearly specify responsibilities of the person in charge of an audit. These policies and procedures, including the monitoring of workloads, work quality and progress, must ensure that the persons in charge of an audit must fulfill their assigned tasks.
54. The State Audit Office should develop policies and procedures to assign proper personnel who have essential professional competence and eligibility to
(i) Perform the work in conformity with the professional standard and other applicable laws;
(ii) Release audit reports appropriate to specific circumstances.
55. When assigning personnel to perform audits, managing and controlling the quality of such audit, the State Audit Office must consider issues concerning the personnel of the Audit Workgroup, including:
(i) Practical knowledge and previous performance in audits which have the identical complicated characteristics and degree through appropriate guidance, training and involvement;
(ii) Knowledge about the professional standard and other applicable laws.
(iii) Professional knowledge, including knowledge about the information technology;
(iv) Knowledge about operational sector and extent of the audited entity;
(v) Capability of applying professional judgements;
(vi) Knowledge about quality control policies and procedures adopted by the State Audit Office;
(vii) Compliance with ethical requirements.
56. The State Audit Office should provide policies and procedures to evaluate the work performance, welfare policies and advancement opportunities for auditors in which the recognition and reward for achievements and outcomes in an attempt to maintain and enhance the professional competence and fulfill commitment to conforming to ethical requirements must be defined. The State Audit Office should take the following steps in maintaining and enhancing the professional competence and fulfilling the commitment to adhering to ethical principles, including:
(i) Notify all of auditors of requirements of the State Audit Office relating to the work performance and ethical principles;
(ii) Provide guidance for auditors on evaluation of work performance, promotion and career development;
(iii) Make auditors be aware that the appointment or promotion decision rely much on work performance and compliance with ethical principles, and that they shall be subjected to punitive actions unless they do not comply with policies and procedures adopted by the State Audit Office.
Performance of audits
57. The State Audit Office shall develop and adopt policies and procedures to ensure that audits must be performed in accordance with professional standards, applicable laws as well as release audit reports appropriate to specific circumstances. These policies and procedures include:
(i) Matters relevant to promoting consistency in the quality of the work performed;
(ii) Supervision responsibilities;
(iii) Review responsibilities.
Promoting consistency in the quality of the work performed
58. The State Audit Office shall establish policies and procedures in which the consistency in the quality of the work performed is emphasized, including:
(i) Audit policies, procedures, tools and methodologies suitable to conduct audits, even including the work that is contracted out.
(ii) Policies and procedures designed to encourage high quality and discourage or prevent low quality. This includes creating an environment that is stimulating, encourages proper use of professional judgements and promotes quality improvements. All work carried out should be subject to review as a means of contributing to quality and promoting experience learning and career development.
(iii) When difficult or contentious matters arise, the State Audit Office should ensure that appropriate resources, such as technical experts, are employed to deal with such matters.
(iv) All work performed must conform to applicable professional standards, and if any requirement in a standard is not followed, the State Audit Office should ensure that the reasons for this are appropriately documented and approved.
(v) Any different opinions within the State Audit Office are clearly documented and resolved before an audit report is issued by the State Audit Office.
59. These policies and procedures should be communicated through paper or electronic manuals, software tools and thematic guides. Guidance shall be provided as follows:
(i) All members of the Audit Workgroup must be guided to clearly understand the aim, content, extent and methodology of an audit;
(ii) Procedures for ensuring that relevant professional standards are followed;
(iii) Procedures for supervision of the work performed, training and guidance provided for auditors;
(iv) Methods for reviewing audit engagements performed, importance judgements and audit reports;
(v) Safe custody of documentation about audit engagements and audit review;
(vi) Update and dissemination of all policies and procedures relating to an audit.
60. Training and working in a team in a proper manner will help less experienced members involved in performing an audit get better understanding of the aim and their assigned tasks
61. Supervision of the work performed shall include:
(i) Monitoring the work progress;
(ii) Considering the professional competence and capability of each member of the Audit Workgroup or Team in order to determine whether they have sufficient time to perform their tasks, and they are aware of regulations and instructions, and audit engagements are performed in a timely manner;
(iii) Dealing with key issues that may arise in the process of performing the work, considering the importance of such issues and making any appropriate adjustment to the audit plan;
(iv) Determining issues that require consultation or need to be considered by more experienced members in the Audit Workgroup or Team while an audit is performed.
62. Policies and procedures pertaining to the review responsibilities should be defined on the principle that more experienced members of the Audit Workgroup or Team shall review the work performed by less experienced members. Matters required to be reviewed include:
(i) The work performed in conformity with the professional standard and other applicable laws.
(ii) Key matters that need to be further considered;
(iii) Proper consultation which has been carried out and the consultation result which has been documented;
(iv) Adjustments to the detailed audit plan (including content, schedule and extent of work performed, if required);
(v) Efforts which have been made to support conclusions drawn and documented in an appropriate manner;
(vi) Collection of sufficient and appropriate evidence as a means for issuing audit reports;
(vii) The possibility of reaching the aim of an audit.
63. Consultation process includes consulting with appropriate professionals inside or outside of the State Audit Office. The State Audit Office should establish polices ad procedures so as to reasonably ensure that:
(i) Proper consultation must be carried out to deal with complicated matters or those likely to cause dispute;
(ii) Content, extent and conclusion drawn after consultation must be recorded in the audit documentation;
(iii) Conclusions drawn from consultation must be implemented after the competent authority grants approval.
Reviewing how the quality of an audit is controlled
64. Policies and procedures designed to review audit quality control should stipulate (that):
(i) Extent, content, methodology, process, responsibility and all-level authority in carrying out the review of audit quality control;
(ii) Audit reports will not be issued until the review of audit quality control is completed;
(iii) The extent of the review of audit quality control is dependent on the complexity of an audit, audited entity and risk that the audit report will not be appropriate to specific circumstances. The review of audit quality control shall not reduce the responsibilities of the Audit Workgroup’s leader;
(iv) Evaluation of the independence of members of the Audit Workgroup involved in an audit;
(v) The Audit Workgroup has had proper consultation about matters that still contain difference in standpoints, complicated matters or those likely to cause dispute as well as conclusions drawn from such consultation;
(vi) Audit documentation selected to subject to review must reflect the work performed relating to important judgements and support conclusions reached by the Audit Workgroup;
(vii) Criteria for the reviewer's capability determined through the professional competence necessary to perform review tasks, including experience and authority.
(viii) Documentation used for reviewing the quality control must be retained.
Difference in viewpoints
65. The State Audit Office should establish policies and procedures to deal with and resolve matters that still contain difference in viewpoints between members within the Audit Workgroup, or leaders of the Audit Workgroup and reviewers of the control of quality of an audit. Procedures for dealing with difference in viewpoints may include consultation with an auditor, expert, professional organization or competent authority. These policies and procedures should stipulate (that):
(i) Conclusions drawn by the competent authority must be recorded in audit documentation and must be implemented;
(ii) Audit reports shall not be issued when there is any difference in viewpoints that has not been resolved and concluded by the competent authority.
Documentation about an audit
66. The State Audit Office should establish policies and procedures stipulating that audit documentation must:
(i) Be created and retained in a timely manner and within a sufficiently long time, which serves the purpose of meeting requirements set out by the State Audit Office and legislative ones;
(ii) Ensure the confidentiality, safety, integrity and accessibility and restorability;
(iii) Prevent the possibility that such audit documentation is changed without permission or lost.
67. The State Audit Office shall establish a monitoring process designed to provide it with reasonable assurance that the policies and procedures relating to the system of quality control are relevant, adequate and operating effectively. Monitoring process shall:
(i) include an ongoing consideration and evaluation of the system of quality control, including inspection carried out to select a form of completed work as a part of the whole work performed, for example, inspection of at least one completed engagement for an affiliate in charge of an audit;
(ii) Designate an affiliate of the State Audit Office with sufficient and appropriate eligibility, experience and authority to assume the monitoring responsibilities;
(iii) Stipulate that officials or staff performing monitoring tasks are independent, not involved in implementing and controlling the quality of the work.
Monitoring policies and procedures designed to control the quality of an audit
68. The quality control system developed by the State Audit Office includes quality control at all levels and independent monitoring of range of controls. The aim of monitoring policies and procedures designed for the quality control is to assess:
(i) Compliance with professional standards and applicable laws;
(ii) The quality control system is appropriately designed and operating effectively;
(iii) Policies and procedures designed for the quality control are applied in an appropriate manner in order to ensure that audit reports issued are appropriate to specific circumstances.
69. Procedures for inspection and monitoring include spontaneous inspection (without prior notification). Periodic inspection or monitoring can be carried out, depending on:
(i) Extent, content and complexity of an audit;
(ii) Previous inspection or monitoring result;
(iii) Risks concerning an audit engagement and audited entity.
70. When necessary, the State Audit Office should consider engaging another institution or organization with appropriate professional competence to carry out an independent review of the overall system of quality control.
71. Where appropriate, the State Audit Office may consider several methods for monitoring the audit quality as follows:
(i) Independent inspection;
(ii) Survey of interested parties;
(iii) Inspection of implementation of recommendations;
(iv) Feedback from the audited entity.
Evaluating, discussing and correcting discovered defects
72. Defects discovered during the monitoring process are evaluated and the State Audit Office should examine whether:
(i) These defects arise but have yet to reach the extent that they may reveal that the quality control system is insufficient. This can provide the State Audit Office with reasonable assurance that that system complies with professional standards, applicable laws and audit reports issued by the State Audit Office under specific circumstances; or
(ii) These defects happen repeatedly or other serious defects need repairing in a timely manner.
73. The monitoring organization must discuss defects discovered through the monitoring process with the leader of the affiliate in charge of an audit and the leader of the Audit Workgroup as well as give recommendations on appropriate remedial actions to be taken. The result achieved by monitoring the quality control system must be promptly reported to the State Auditor General to enable the State Auditor General to take appropriate action.
Considering feedbacks and complaints
74. Policies and procedures designed to deal with feedbacks and complaints about the quality of an audit must be established to obtain reasonable assurance that the State Audit Office has appropriately dealt with the followings:
(i) Feedbacks and complaints about engagements in breach of professional standards and applicable laws;
(ii) Opinions on any breach of the quality control system.
It is necessary that public communication channels must be established to support monitoring procedures to enable the State Audit Office's officials and staff to give their feedbacks on their concerns without any worry about the possibility of being hated.
75. Policies and procedures designed to resolve feedbacks and complaints can include regulations stipulating that the person who supervises this resolution must have:
(i)Appropriate and sufficient experience;
(ii) Required authority;
(iii) No involvement in an audit.
The member of supervisory organization in charge of resolution can consult with legal consultant when appropriate. Announcement of monitoring report and response to feedbacks and complaints must comply with laws and regulations laid down by the State Audit Office.
Documentation about the audit quality control
76. The State Audit Office shall establish policies and procedures stipulating appropriate documentation in order to provide evidence for how each element operates in the quality control system. Documentation about the quality control must be stored in accordance with laws and regulations laid down by the State Audit Office.
77. Appropriate documentation relating to the monitoring work shall include:
(i) Monitoring procedures, including selection of completed audits subject to review;
(ii) Documentation which are aimed at evaluating (whether):
. Compliance with professional standards and relevant legal regulations;
. Audit quality control system, to check whether it is designed in a relevant and efficient manner;
. Quality control policies and procedures adopted by the State Audit Office are applied in an appropriate manner to enable audit reports to be issued in conformity with specific circumstances.
(iii) Determination of discovered defects and evaluation of impacts that such defects cause and basis for determination of the following steps to be taken.
This translation is made by LawSoft and for reference purposes only. Its copyright is owned by LawSoft and protected under Clause 2, Article 14 of the Law on Intellectual Property.Your comments are always welcomed