# Oliver Freaney & Co. + Deloitte & Touche



## Roger (30 Jul 2003)

*Oliver Freaney & Co. + Deloitte & Touche*

Can anyone shed some light on the implications of why these companies were 'reprimanded'. The story is here
[broken link removed]

Was their some financial gain achieved by the client?


----------



## Conan (30 Jul 2003)

*OF and D&T*

As to whether there was any financial gain achieved by the client... well is'nt that what one (at least) of the Tribunals is trying to uncover. After all it seems that Dunne Stores paid for the extension to Michael Lowry's house (on which gift Lowry apparently paid no tax) and Dunnes attempted to write off the cost as a normal business expense.
Did Dunne et al get any benefits.... well we may eventually find out (but I'm not holding my breath).


----------



## daltonr (31 Jul 2003)

> Was their some financial gain achieved by the client?



Can you think of any other reason for an Accounting firm to do something that would result in their being reprimanded and fined?

-Rd


----------



## zag (5 Aug 2003)

daltonr said - "Can you think of any other reason for an Accounting firm to do something that would result in their being reprimanded and fined?"

Doing something that caused an unwarranted financial loss for the client would probably be a good enough reason.

z


----------



## Brendan Burgess (5 Aug 2003)

I don't think the reprimand was anything to do with financial gain or loss.

Auditors are obliged to be independent of their clients and I think that they were deemed to have broken the Institute's rules on independence. 



> In respect of Deloitte and Touche the Appeal Committee found
> 
> that Deloitte and Touche could not be seen to be independent in carrying out the audits of companies in the Dunnes Stores group for a period of several years up to 1997 and accordingly its objectivity could not be assured. The Appeal Committee affirmed the order of the Committee of Inquiry reprimanding Deloitte and Touche.
> 
> ...



Other findings of the Disciplinary Committee are on the Institute site. 

It's not quite up to date. According to the Institute magazine, the disciplinary committee this month also "_severly_ reprimanded" Buckley Delaney, a Dublin firm, for failing to make tax returns on behalf of their client for about 5 years and failing to respond to correspondence from the client and the client's solicitors. They were fined €7,500 and costs of €1100. They consented to this sanction.

James Hackett, a member of the Institute practising in Cork, has had his membership suspended until he satisfies a judgement which has been registered against him by the Revenue Commissioners. 

I don't know the difference between "reprimand", "severely reprimand" and "censure". But I do know what suspending and expelling mean.


----------



## Amellion (20 Aug 2003)

*disrepute*

I am a CA and am embarrassed by how the whole saga must appear to people outside the profession.

We are being seen to have delivered a slap of a wet fish to member firms who engaged in significantly below par conduct.The very term "Reprimand" probably goes back to the Institute's first rule book .....


----------

