wow!, page-13

hmm how can i not have done that already?

first page from google hits:
http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/11-239MR+ASIC+accepts+enforceable+undertaking+from+North+Parramatta+auditor?openDocument

and then this from chartered accountant:
http://www.charteredaccountants.com.au/The-Institute/Member-complaints-and-discipline/Tribunal-decisions/2012/Stuart-Hamilton-Cameron-FCA-of-New-South-Wales.aspx

2011 was this guy and 2012 audited accounts was signed off by a new auditor. The former auditor was de-registered due to involvement with CTO and another company's audit and ASIC gave him an EU effected his de-registration, which is a career end game for him.

The reason for the strike was 'he should have picked up a material misstatement in 2009 annual report of $80m or so in deferred expenses recognised in the balance sheet instead of being expensed in the income statement (asset/property whatever fancy name they have). CTO subsequently wrote that 80m off for 'change of accounting policy'.

ASIC was not happy about it and kicked this auditor out of the audit game.

Direct quote of an enforceable undertaking (EU) from AISC:

'The EU also follows an investigation of Mr Cameron’s audit of Citigold Corporation Limited for the financial year ended 30 June 2009 (the Citigold Audit). Citigold Corporation Limited is a gold mining company in Charters Towers in Queensland.

ASIC formed the view that Mr Cameron failed to carry out or perform adequately and properly the duties of an auditor. ASIC identified a number of concerns regarding his conduct as lead auditor and was concerned that Mr Cameron failed to ensure that the audit was conducted in accordance with Australian Auditing Standards.

In particular, ASIC was concerned that Mr Cameron failed to ensure that a modified auditor’s report should have been issued, as in ASIC’s view:
the valuation of development property in the Citigold financial report was not in accordance with the relevant accounting standards; and
as a consequence, the Citigold financial report was materially misstated ASIC notes that Citigold subsequently reduced the value of its development properties by $80,043,376 in its financial report for the half-year ended 31 December 2009, albeit Citigold described the reduction as a change in accounting policy on moving into commercial production. such that Mr Cameron should have issued an adverse opinion for material non-compliance with an accounting standard.

Further, ASIC was concerned that Mr Cameron failed to ensure that there was adequate planning and risk assessment procedures performed for the Citigold audit and that there was sufficient appropriate audit evidence regarding $82 million Exploration, Evaluation and Development Expenditure included in the Citigold financial report.'