Our website is made possible by displaying non-intrusive online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling or pausing your ad blocker.
yeep true. ... auditor not hepi...demand high fees or disclaimer report...hahaaa.. must hve tussle or auditor revenge ....likely cos SIR report otherwise.. auditor trying to...dot dot. company
auditor intention ? fiduciary obligations? look at the damage done by auditor..... company to look drag auditor to court ??? pay for the damages. .....
Special independent reviewer auditor Messrs UHY FLVS had obtained sufficient documents to verify the veracity of transactions highlighted by external auditor. External auditor however, said the completion of evaluation impeded by time limitations.
Another word, not enough time to finish the audit to form an audit opinion.
Director sold he/she. You can’t think 1 reason only. Going to die? Or
All his money?he dont want take a risks. Just left his real funds to gamble. Or many reasons. Don’t think only about to sink. We see on Tuesday and lets price talk.
The information were shared amongst independent reviewer and external auditor. The report were only received weeks before deadline, if you are an auditor would you simply sign before access all the information you have in hand? If you talk about science you should ask why auditor signed and the previous annual reports. Don't they verify the documents with the companies those years? Hahaha. Problems or not leave SC or bursa to reveal not you and me.
Vox. . Even big4 also can make mistakes like lately kpmg uk. So past bad records don't mean their job is 100percent unreliable. If made mistakes again u think they not worry aob or sc reprimand them or worse get their audit license suspend??
But i agree with with you that auditor raised the veracity of revenue and costs from mostly from the older AR they signed. I think thats why they need SIR. Sometimes auditor team can be different despite from same audit firm lolz
their new upcoming projects have been verified and certify as genuine. the only issue was the old impairment which they did with 125mil. that was the one Auditor unable to give opinion as there was 2 more documents unsubmitted. As for SERBA DIMANIK, most of their projects were not verified followed by accounting issues and shoplots. Then followed by bonds issuance and expired and unable to make payment. It was HUGE issues followed by one another.
Technical Due Diligence and Cost-Performance Review (“Technical Due Diligence”)
on three (3) local projects
Auditor requested these reports but in the announcement submitted by Reneuco that three projects were identified and proven genuine by independent reviewer. Wonder what are the two outstanding reports?
