Fraude, Continuidade e Auditoria

 A distância entre o que o público imagina e o que o auditor faz, com respeito a fraude e a continuidade, está sendo discutida pelo IAASB. A entidade reconhece existir uma distância entre o que o usuário imagina que a auditoria entrega e o que realmente a auditoria faz. 

Eis um trecho da introdução do documento que apresenta uma perspectiva global:

The purpose of this Discussion Paper is to gather perspectives from all our stakeholders about the role of the auditor in relation to fraud and going concern in an audit of financial statements, and to obtain input on matters about whether our standards related to fraud and going concern remain fit-for-purpose in the current environment.

The information collected will help us to make an informed decision(s)  about possible further actions – we are openminded as to how we could contribute to narrowing the expectation gap, bearing in mind our role as a standard-setter, the proportionality of any proposals and the objective of a financial statement audit.

We have set out certain matters for consideration that have been raised to us through feedback forums or research, but we are not committing to any specific actions at this stage—decisions will be made once we have an informed view about the issues that we need to address and have considered the most appropriate way to address them.

Although the primary focus of this Discussion Paper is on matters that are relevant to the IAASB’s remit (i.e. audit standardsetting and related activities), we encourage all participants in the financial reporting ecosystem to evaluate the necessary changes each stakeholder needs to implement if we, collectively, are to be successful in narrowing the expectation gap.

São citados casos recentes, onde a auditoria cometeu "falhas". 

O fato da IAASB reconhecer este "gap" (como está no documento) pode ser uma evolução. Mas pareceu tímida demais.