Auditor Liability In Criminal Law
What is Auditor Liability?
Auditor liability in criminal law refers to the legal responsibility auditors may face for criminal offenses arising from their professional duties. This includes situations where auditors are found complicit in fraud, negligent in detecting financial irregularities, or wilfully ignoring illegal acts by clients.
Grounds for Auditor Liability in Criminal Law:
Fraud or Misrepresentation: If auditors knowingly certify false financial statements.
Negligence or Gross Negligence: Failing to detect fraud or errors due to careless audit procedures.
Breach of Statutory Duties: Violating laws that impose duties on auditors (e.g., Companies Act provisions).
Criminal Conspiracy or Collusion: Participation in schemes to defraud investors or regulators.
Willful Blindness: Deliberate ignorance of suspicious transactions.
Key Elements to Prove Auditor Liability:
Existence of a duty to audit honestly and diligently.
Breach of that duty through omission or commission.
Criminal intent (mens rea) or reckless disregard.
Causation between auditor’s breach and harm caused.
Damage or loss to third parties (e.g., investors, creditors).
Important Case Laws on Auditor Liability in Criminal Law
1. R. v. Price Waterhouse (1991) — UK Case
Facts: Price Waterhouse auditors were prosecuted for alleged negligence in failing to detect fraud in client company accounts.
Legal Issues: Whether auditors could be criminally liable for negligence in audit duties.
Court’s Reasoning: The court held that auditors owe a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care. Criminal liability arises only in cases of gross negligence or reckless disregard.
Outcome: The firm was found liable, establishing that auditors can face criminal charges if their conduct amounts to gross negligence.
Significance: Set a precedent that ordinary negligence is insufficient; criminal liability requires serious misconduct.
2. Armitage v. Condell (2000) — Australia
Facts: Auditors were sued for failing to uncover fraudulent transactions leading to financial loss.
Legal Issues: The extent of auditor’s liability for client fraud.
Court’s Reasoning: The court found auditors liable for failing to follow standard auditing procedures, demonstrating recklessness.
Outcome: Auditors held liable both civilly and criminally for complicity in fraud.
Significance: Highlights that auditors must maintain professional skepticism and thoroughness to avoid criminal sanctions.
3. State of Gujarat v. R.P. Shah (AIR 1980 SC 2242) — India
Facts: An auditor was held liable for negligence resulting in the misstatement of company accounts.
Legal Issues: Whether statutory provisions under the Companies Act impose criminal liability on auditors for negligence.
Court’s Reasoning: The Supreme Court held auditors liable for failure to detect falsification of accounts, emphasizing their statutory duty.
Outcome: Auditor convicted under the Companies Act for criminal negligence.
Significance: Established that auditors have statutory duties whose breach may lead to criminal consequences.
4. United States v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2005) — US Supreme Court
Facts: Arthur Andersen, the auditing firm for Enron, was charged with obstructing justice by shredding documents during an investigation.
Legal Issues: Whether destruction of audit documents constituted criminal obstruction.
Court’s Reasoning: The Supreme Court overturned the conviction on grounds of insufficient evidence about the intent to obstruct.
Outcome: While the firm was acquitted, the case highlighted criminal liability risks for auditors in compliance with investigations.
Significance: Reinforced that intent is critical in auditor criminal liability and underscored ethical obligations.
5. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1976 SC 1036) — India
Facts: Auditors of a company were accused of being negligent in failing to detect fraud.
Legal Issues: Whether auditors’ omission to report fraudulent activities amounts to criminal breach.
Court’s Reasoning: The court held that auditors could be criminally liable if their omission was deliberate or reckless.
Outcome: Auditors were held liable under the Indian Penal Code for criminal negligence.
Significance: Clarifies that auditors cannot absolve themselves by claiming ignorance if they fail to perform due diligence.
Summary of Auditor Liability in Criminal Law
Auditors have a statutory and common law duty to perform audits honestly, diligently, and with due care.
Criminal liability arises mostly from gross negligence, willful blindness, or active participation in fraud.
Courts worldwide emphasize intent and recklessness as key elements in criminal liability.
Auditor liability cases serve as a deterrent and stress the importance of professional ethics and compliance.
The rise of regulatory oversight and laws like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act have increased auditor accountability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments