Connect with us

Accounting

AICPA proposes update to auditors’ responsibilities related to fraud

Published

on

The American Institute of CPAs’ Auditing Standards Board is looking for feedback on a proposed standard updating auditors’ responsibilities related to fraud.

The proposed Statement on Auditing Standards, The Auditor’s Responsibilities Relating to Fraud in an Audit of Financial Statements, includes several changes, such as the creation of required procedures for when an auditor has identified or suspected fraud. The proposed SAS also reminds auditors to maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit.  

“This exposure draft doesn’t alter the overall objectives of the auditor when fraud or suspected fraud is identified,” said AICPA chief auditor Jennifer Burns in a statement Thursday. “What it does is strengthen and clarify the auditor’s specific role in these circumstances. Management, those charged with governance and auditors all have important responsibilities, and when everyone diligently executes those responsibilities, an organization is best positioned to identify fraud.”

The proposed changes come in the wake of a stalled project from the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board that was opposed by many auditing firms and organizations.

The proposed changes in the exposure draft include:

  • New requirements to clarify the auditor’s response when fraud or suspected fraud is identified in an audit of financial statements, which are among the most significant changes in the proposed SAS;
  • Extra guidance to explain the relationship of fraud with corruption, bribery and money laundering, as well as fraud committed against an entity by third parties;
  • A new requirement that stresses the importance of remaining alert throughout the audit for information that is indicative of fraud or suspected fraud;
  • A new requirement for the engagement partner, when addressing engagement resources, to determine that members of the engagement team collectively have the appropriate competence and capabilities, including sufficient time and appropriate skills or knowledge, to perform the audit;
  • A broadening of the requirement for an auditor to perform a retrospective review of management judgments and assumptions related to accounting estimates reflected in the financial statements of the prior year, and not just those of significant accounting estimates;
  • A new requirement for the auditor to treat the risk of management override of controls as a risk of material misstatement due to fraud at the financial statement level and to determine whether such risk affects the assessment of risks at the assertion level;
  • An enhanced requirement for an auditor to take into account related fraud risk factors when determining which types of revenue, revenue transactions or relevant assertions give rise to risks of material misstatement due to fraud;
  • Auditors are concerned about a material misstatement of financial statements due to fraud, and the proposed standard clarifies that even when an identified misstatement due to fraud is not “quantitatively material,” it may nevertheless be “qualitatively material” depending on who instigated or perpetrated the fraud (such as management) and why the fraud was perpetrated;
  • Requirements pertaining to communications with management and the governing body throughout the audit engagement.

Comments about the exposure draft are due by Oct. 3, 2025. If issued as final, the proposed SAS would supersede SAS No. 122, Statements on Auditing Standards: Clarification and Recodification, as amended, section 240, Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit (AU-C Section 240), and  amend several other standards.

The exposure draft is the result of over three years of outreach and research by an ASB task force, which also considered alignment of the proposed standard, where appropriate, with a similar project by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. The ASB is also continuing to monitor a similar project at the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, known as the noncompliance with laws and regulations or NOCLAR standard, which the PCAOB has halted for this year after a backlash from auditing firms and business groups.

If issued as final, the proposed SAS would be effective for audits of financial statements for periods ending on or after Dec. 15, 2028, with early implementation permitted.

Continue Reading

Accounting

AI-Driven Automation and Continuous Accounting Frameworks

Published

on

The accounting profession is undergoing a fundamental structural transition as enterprise finance departments shift from periodic month-end closes toward automated continuous accounting models. By integrating specialized machine learning algorithms directly into enterprise resource planning (ERP) platforms, chief accounting officers are transforming financial reporting from a retrospective exercise into a real-time operational asset.

The Shift from Periodic Close to Continuous Financial Reporting
Traditional accounting workflows heavily relied on manual data reconciliation, spreadsheet calculations, and multi-week closing cycles at the end of each fiscal period. In contrast, continuous accounting frameworks utilize automated software agents to process, validate, and post transactional data in real time as business activities occur.

Automated bank reconciliation tools cross-reference incoming bank feeds, invoice records, and purchase orders automatically. By resolving transactional variances instantly throughout the month, corporate accounting teams eliminate the traditional workload spikes associated with quarterly and annual closes.

Machine Learning in Audit Trails and Anomaly Detection
Advanced natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning tools are redefining internal audit and financial control environments. Automated systems analyze 100% of general ledger entries, identifying anomalous transactions, duplicate payments, and unauthorized journal entries in real time.

Rather than relying on random statistical sampling, corporate internal auditors can focus their attention on high-risk flags automatically surfaced by algorithmic monitoring platforms. This continuous risk assessment strengthens internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR) and significantly reduces fraud risk.

Evolving Roles for Accounting Professionals
As routine data entry and manual reconciliation tasks become fully automated, the skill set required for accounting professionals is shifting toward data analysis, system design, and strategic business advisory.
– Systems Governance: Accountants are increasingly responsible for monitoring algorithmic accuracy and managing data integration pipelines.
– Business Partnership: Finance professionals leverage real-time financial dashboards to advise operational leaders on margin management and working capital allocation.
– Regulatory Compliance Management: Accounting teams utilize automated platforms to ensure compliance with dynamic tax codes and international accounting standards.

Core Implementation Recommendations
1. Deploy Automated Reconciliation Tools: Integrate continuous transaction processing modules into existing enterprise ERP architectures.
2. Establish Algorithmic Governance Controls: Implement strict internal testing protocols to ensure automated accounting rules comply with GAAP/IFRS standards.
3. Reskill Accounting Teams: Invest in training finance staff on data analytics, workflow automation, and predictive financial modeling.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Global ESG Reporting Standards and Double Materiality Compliance

Published

on

Corporate accounting departments face expanding reporting expectations as international sustainability disclosure standards achieve regulatory enforcement across major global jurisdictions. Chief Accounting Officers (CAOs) and corporate controllers are establishing rigorous internal accounting controls to treat Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) metrics with the same data precision, auditability, and governance as traditional financial statements.

Regulatory Harmonization Under Global Sustainability Frameworks
The implementation of standardized sustainability reporting frameworks—notably rules established by international sustainability accounting boards—has created unified expectations for public and large private enterprises. Corporations must report standardized metrics covering greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1, 2, and material Scope 3), energy utilization, workforce demographics, and supply chain governance.

In Europe and other participating international jurisdictions, double materiality principles are mandatory. Under double materiality, organizations must report both how external sustainability risks impact corporate financial performance, and how internal corporate operations affect surrounding environmental and social structures.

Integrating Sustainability Metrics into Core ERP Systems
To provide auditable non-financial data, enterprise organizations are integrating specialized carbon accounting and ESG management platforms directly into core ERP systems. Automated data collectors capture energy utility invoices, logistics fuel consumption metrics, and vendor compliance records in real time.

Establishing automated, traceable data pipelines ensures that non-financial reporting is supported by clear audit trails. This structured approach allows external financial auditors to provide reasonable assurance on sustainability disclosures during annual corporate reporting cycles.

Financial Impacts and Capital Market Disclosure
Accurate ESG reporting directly influences corporate cost of capital and institutional credit ratings. Commercial lenders and institutional asset managers systematically incorporate sustainability metrics into risk pricing models. Companies that demonstrate transparent, verifiable progress in operational energy efficiency and climate risk mitigation benefit from expanded access to green bond markets and lower debt pricing.

Action Steps for Accounting Leadership
1. Implement Double Materiality Frameworks: Conduct comprehensive assessments to identify material financial and operational sustainability metrics.
2. Build Auditable Non-Financial Data Pipelines: Automate ESG data collection within core accounting software to ensure data integrity.
3. Align Sustainability with Annual Financial Filings: Prepare non-financial disclosures concurrently with financial statements to satisfy regulatory audit expectations.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Modernizing Internal Controls: Machine Learning and Continuous Monitoring in Auditing

Published

on

Internal audit departments and corporate risk managers are modernizing internal control frameworks by shifting from periodic sampling techniques to continuous monitoring and machine learning analytics. As operational data volumes increase across enterprise organizations, automated control testing ensures financial integrity, prevents corporate fraud, and streamlines annual audit engagements.

The Limitation of Periodic Audit Sampling
Historically, internal and external auditors evaluated internal controls by reviewing random samples of financial transactions—often analyzing less than five percent of total ledger entries. In complex enterprise environments, periodic sampling methods carry inherent risks of overlooking localized financial misstatements, unauthorized disbursements, or operational control breakdowns.

In 2026, progressive internal audit functions are utilizing automated continuous monitoring platforms that evaluate one hundred percent of financial transactions in real time. Continuous control auditing systems continuously monitor general ledger entries, procurement approvals, and expense reimbursements across all operating subsidiaries.

AI-Powered Fraud Detection and Anomaly Identification
Machine learning models trained on historical corporate financial data excel at identifying subtle transactional anomalies that indicate potential fraud or operational error. Automated systems instantly flag duplicate invoice payments, unapproved vendor creation, unusual journal entry timing, and unauthorized override of authority thresholds.

When an anomaly is detected, the automated auditing platform generates an instant risk alert, allowing internal audit teams to investigate root causes immediately. Early detection prevents minor operational errors from escalating into material weaknesses in financial reporting.

Streamlining External Audit Preparation
Continuous internal control monitoring delivers significant benefits during annual external financial audits. External audit firms can review continuous audit logs and automated control testing documentation, reducing the time required for manual field testing.

This integrated approach lowers overall audit compliance fees, reduces administrative burdens on corporate accounting staff, and provides senior management and audit committees with real-time visibility into the organization’s overall risk profile.

Core Implementation Guidelines
1. Transition to 100% Data Testing: Replace legacy sampling methods with automated continuous audit monitoring systems.
2. Deploy Anomaly Detection Algorithms: Implement machine learning models to identify unauthorized transactions and operational control overrides.
3. Align Internal and External Audit Workflows: Coordinate continuous control testing protocols with external auditors to optimize annual compliance cycles.

Continue Reading

Trending