TFL Vsebine / Revija SIR*IUS

Understanding and detecting occupational frauds

Med opredelitvijo prevare po Mednarodnih standardih revidiranja 240 in opredelitvami relevantnih kaznivih dejanj po Kazenskem zakoniku obstaja več razlik. Te razlike je treba poznati in razumeti, saj se po navadi ravno pri teh razlikah ločijo namerne prevare od malomarnih napak. Pri poneverbah je v Kazenskem zakoniku mnogo bolj izpostavljen element zaupanja, katerega zlorabo je treba dokazati, da bi lahko storilcu očitali kaznivo dejanje. Na zlorabo zaupanja vedno kaže izogibanje notranjim kontrolam s strani poslovodstva. Vendar pa je zaradi takšnega izogibanja poslovodske prevare še posebej težko sploh zaznati. Enako velja tudi, ko poslovodstvo zlorabi neurejeno področje poslovanja svoje družbe. V takšnih primerih je poslovodske prevare skoraj nemogoče ločiti od malomarnega poslovanja. S stališča poklicnih prevar imajo poslovodstva družb najboljši položaj, da si ob zadostnem motivu ustvarijo ali pa zaznajo priložnosti za prevare in njihova ravnanja izjemno dobro racionalizirajo. Ob upoštevanju dejstva, da so poslovodske prevare med vsemi poklicnimi prevarami za družbo najškodljivejše, je izvajanje revizij s poklicno nezaupljivostjo še toliko pomembnejše. Zavestno vzdrževanje poklicne nezaupljivosti pri vodenju razgovorov s člani poslovodstva omogoča revizorjem, da pri pridobivanju pomembnih informacij zaznajo morebitno zavajanje.

There are several differences between the definition of fraud in International Standard on Auditing 240 and the definition of relevant criminal offences in the Penal Code. These differences shall be known and understood, because these very differences distinguish intentional fraud from negligent errors. When it comes to embezzlement, the Penal Code emphasizes the element of trust to a much greater extent. In order to maintain that a perpetrator has committed a criminal offence, the abuse of trust needs to be proven. The latter is always indicated when internal the management circumvents control procedures. However, such acts of circumvention make it even more difficult to detect management fraud. The same applies to cases where the management abuses the unregulated field of business in which the company operates. In such cases, it is almost impossible to separate management frauds from negligent business activities. When it comes to occupational fraud, a company’s management is in the best position to create or detect opportunities for fraud, if sufficiently motivated, and to rationalize their actions. In view of the fact that among all occupational frauds management frauds are the most harmful to a company, the execution of audits with professional skepticism is all the more important. Maintaining an attitude of professional skepticism in interviews with members of the management team enables auditors to detect potentially misleading claims when acquiring relevant information.