Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
It’s a shot across the bow that will have auditing firm Deloitte deeply worried. Last week, former Deloitte auditor Patrick Seinstra was found guilty in a disciplinary hearing in Amsterdam of bungling the audit of Steinhoff.
The Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets said Seinstra acted "contrary to the fundamental principle of professional competence and due care", failed to secure "sufficient and appropriate audit evidence" and was "insufficiently professionally critical", according to the finding first reported by News24.
The sanction — a suspension of Seinstra’s licence for three months — is almost beside the point; he’d left the industry long before this hearing.
And there are several mitigating circumstances in Deloitte’s favour. For example, Seinstra was lied to by former Steinhoff CEO Markus Jooste and, allegedly, by the auditors of Steinhoff’s European business, Commerzial Treuhand. Also, it was Deloitte’s refusal to sign Steinhoff’s 2017 financials that led to the deception being unmasked.
Still, for a fraud that went on for more than a decade, involving R106bn in fictitious profits, it always seemed likely that a scalp would be claimed of the auditors.
But what is more glaring is that while this is a landmark SA fraud, our authorities are nowhere. Why should there only be consequences in the Netherlands?
Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
EDITORIAL: SA needs dutch courage
It’s a shot across the bow that will have auditing firm Deloitte deeply worried. Last week, former Deloitte auditor Patrick Seinstra was found guilty in a disciplinary hearing in Amsterdam of bungling the audit of Steinhoff.
The Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets said Seinstra acted "contrary to the fundamental principle of professional competence and due care", failed to secure "sufficient and appropriate audit evidence" and was "insufficiently professionally critical", according to the finding first reported by News24.
The sanction — a suspension of Seinstra’s licence for three months — is almost beside the point; he’d left the industry long before this hearing.
And there are several mitigating circumstances in Deloitte’s favour. For example, Seinstra was lied to by former Steinhoff CEO Markus Jooste and, allegedly, by the auditors of Steinhoff’s European business, Commerzial Treuhand. Also, it was Deloitte’s refusal to sign Steinhoff’s 2017 financials that led to the deception being unmasked.
Still, for a fraud that went on for more than a decade, involving R106bn in fictitious profits, it always seemed likely that a scalp would be claimed of the auditors.
But what is more glaring is that while this is a landmark SA fraud, our authorities are nowhere. Why should there only be consequences in the Netherlands?
Steinhoff shares surge as it raises settlement offer
Steinhoff case: going nowhere slowly
Why SA’s most wanted have nothing to fear from the justice system
ROB ROSE: Steinhoff vultures in the headlights
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Most Read
Related Articles
Hamilton withdraws Dutch appeal in settlement battle, says Steinhoff
Hawks await information from abroad in Steinhoff probe, MPs told
Steinhoff crashes almost a fifth after court blow to settlement plans
Steinhoff’s proposed legal settlement gets green light
Steinhoff cuts losses as it saves on advisers and investigators
Published by Arena Holdings and distributed with the Financial Mail on the last Thursday of every month except December and January.