September 25, 2020

Deloitte Is the Audit Firm That Has Had the Most Trouble in China… By Far

Cruising around el Twittero this morning, we came across something interesting shared by Francine McKenna:

This post by Fredrik Oqvist, founder of China RAI, has a table that shows which audit firms have had the biggest auditing trouble in little China and the results are pretty striking:

Jesus. Remember Frazer Frost? That brings back some memories.

But as you can see, Deloitte runs away with it. According to this list, Deloitte has more "occurrences" of fraud or other accounting issues in China than the three other Big 4 firms combined.

Here's Oqvist discussing the story behind the numbers:

This data is a bit different from what was published last time [check Oqvist's post from last year], as it focuses particularly on the US-listed firms, much like what the PCAOB is likely to do. This means that Sino-forest is not included, nor is the recent accusations against Zoomlion or other Hong Kong listed companies.
 
I cannot guarantee that the list is absolutely exhaustive. For instance what is deemed serious enough to classify as a legitimate fraud accusation is somewhat discretionary. However, with 158 companies on the list it offers good guidance for firms that might be more likely to have papers reviewed by the PCAOB, and thus where there might be more risk. 
Oqvist then notes Deloitte as the "outstanding leader" and wonders " what the PCAOB and SEC does with this."
 
But we already know what Deloitte is doing — creating diversions! It will be very interesting to see what, if anything, will come out of this; it's clear that something has been amiss for Deloitte. 
 

Have something to add to this story? Give us a shout by email, Twitter, or text/call the tipline at 202-505-8885. As always, all tips are anonymous.

Comments are closed.

Related articles

Deloitte Consulting Is Irresponsible, Lacks Integrity, and Is Unreliable, Says Accenture

[The Florida Agency for Health Care Administration] “ignored information that, by its nature, would be expected to have a strong bearing on whether the intended awardee is ‘responsible,’ that is, whether it has the capability in all respects to fully perform the contract requirements and the integrity and reliability that will assure good faith performance.” […]