Human Rights Risk Management Process

The fire in a nine-story factory building in Bangladesh killed 400 people. More than 600 people remain unaccounted for. It housed five garment factories that supplied to international brands – J.C. Penny, The Children’s Place, Dress Barn, Primark, Wal-Mart etc. The workers were asked to come to work even when cracks appeared in the building the previous day.

Bangladesh is the second largest exporter of clothes and the workers get the lowest compensations. Just around USD 37-40 per month. The question arises why are the multinational organizations not following the UN Guiding Principles for Human Rights protection. The reason is simple; they want to show higher and higher profits to the investors.

In Delhi, in Munirka one will find numerous small factories full of workers making export garments. A friend of mine also ran one. I had bought a few shirts from her at cost price ranging from Rs 300-500 (USD 6-10). In one international visit, I found the same shirts selling in range of USD 15-30. The fivefold increase in price was because of the brand tag attached to the shirt.

The multinational buyers push the prices down and some supplier gives a rock bottom price. The others are forced to match that price to get the business. End result is that basic facilities are not provided to the workers and they work at really low wages. Unknown workers are paying with their lives in developing countries to satisfy the growth targets set by CEOs to earn their bonuses and keep investors happy.  It is the dark side of capitalism which organizations want to hide.

In most companies, human rights risk management is not a focus area. The 2013 Global Risk Management Survey conducted by RIMS identified seven risks related to human resources among the top fifty risks. Though worker injury and harassment were included there was no specific emphasis on human rights risk management.

The risk management team can conduct annually or bi-annually a human rights risk management assessment. It requires attention not only from human resources perspective but from operational, financial, legal and reputational risks perspective. Any breach can result in huge losses.

Here are some of the steps mentioned in the UN Guiding Principles on Human Rights and guide “Investing the Right Way” issued by Institute of Human Rights and Business.

1.     Review the Human Rights Policy Statement

Human rights risk management is emerging as an important issue, especially with multinationals entering emerging markets and developing countries. They are expected to protect and respect rights of workers, communities and society. Investors can play a crucial role by influencing companies to promote human rights relating to gender equality, child labor, rights of indigenous people, land acquisition, mineral processing etc.

Hence, companies need to publish Human Rights Policy Statement on their websites. The UN Guiding Principle 16 states –

 “As the basis for embedding their responsibility to respect human rights, business enterprises should express their commitment to meet this responsibility through a statement of policy that:

(a) Is approved at the most senior level of the business enterprise;

(b) Is informed by relevant internal and/or external expertise;

(c) Stipulates the enterprise’s human rights expectations of personnel, business partners and other parties directly linked to its operations, products or services;

(d) Is publicly available and communicated internally and externally to all personnel, business partners and other relevant parties;

(e) Is reflected in operational policies and procedures necessary to embed it throughout the business enterprise.”

As a first step risk managers need to check whether the organization has a human rights policy statement and the above mentioned steps have been adhered to.

2.     Human Rights Impact Assessment

The second aspect of UN Guiding Principles is for companies to establish human rights due diligence processes. Guiding Principle 17 states:

 “In order to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their adverse human rights impacts, business enterprises should carry out human rights due diligence. The process should include assessing actual and potential human rights impacts, integrating and acting upon the findings, tracking responses, and communicating how impacts are addressed. Human rights due diligence:

(a) Should cover adverse human rights impacts that the business enterprise may cause or contribute to through its own activities, or which may be directly linked to its operations, products or services by its business relationships;

(b) Will vary in complexity with the size of the business enterprise, the risk of severe human rights impacts, and the nature and context of its operations;

(c) Should be on going, recognizing that the human rights risks may change over time as the business enterprise’s operations and operating context evolves.”

Human rights risk management is complex and challenging. If ignored, they can increase political risks and deteriorate relationships of the organization with the government. For example, Tata Motors wished to establish Nano manufacturing plant in Singur, West Bengal. The government allocated agriculture land using 1894 land acquisition rule, meant for public improvement projects, to take over 997 acres farmland. The farmers protested with help of activists and the then opposition leader Mamta Banerjee. Tata Motors moved out of West Bengal and established the factory in Gujarat. Multinationals looking for large tracts of land to establish factories are facing similar challenges in India.

Another aspect to look into is that scrap, waste disposal, sewage, environment pollution etc. from factories can impact food, water and health of local communities.

Decision needs to be taken whether investments should be made in countries or states with poor human rights record. In India, the Naxalite area is extremely conflict prone and business operations can have severe human rights impact.

Risk managers should evaluate the strategy and operations of the company from human rights, environmental, social and governance factors. The companies can face operational risks (project delays or cancellation), legal and regulatory risks (lawsuits and fines) and reputational risks (negative press coverage and brand damage). The impact assessment should be done from investors, customers, employees, society and supplier perspective. Identify business owners for the risks and devise appropriate risk mitigation plans to address adverse impact.

3.   Grievance Mechanisms

UN Guiding Principles state that victims of corporate related human rights abuse should have access to judicial or non-judicial remedies. Companies should provide some remedies themselves and cooperate in the remediation process.

UN Guiding Principle 29 states –

“To make it possible for grievances to be addressed early and remediated directly, business enterprises should establish or participate in effective operational-level grievance mechanisms for individuals and communities who may be adversely impacted.”

However, this isn’t followed by the companies in true spirit. “A Vigieo analysis of human rights records of 1500 companies listed in North America, Europe and Asia revealed that, in the previous three years, almost one in five had faced at least one allegation that it had abused or failed to respect human rights.”

Ideally the investors in the company should ensure that grievance mechanisms exist and address human rights issues. The transparency and disclosure of the same in annual reports would highlight the financial, legal and reputational risks. However, the investors don’t seem to be bothered by it.

See the case of Apple. It reported  Gross Profit Margin – 42.5%, Net Profit Margin – 26.7%, Revenue Per Employee – $ 2,149,835 and Net Revenue Per Employee – $ 573,255. It has 43000 employees in US and 20,000 outside US. However, Apple contractors hire an additional 700,000 people to engineer, build and assemble iPads, iPhones and Apple’s other products.

An Apple supplier in Taiwan, Foxconn was recently in the news for its workers attempting suicide. As per reports “Workers are required to stand at fast-moving assembly lines for eight hours without a break and without talking. Workers, sharing sleeping accommodations with nine other workmates, often do not know each other’s names. They do not have much time to get to know each other. The basic starting pay of 900 RMB($130) a month – barely enough to live on – can be augmented to a more respectable 2,000RMB ($295) only by working 30 hours overtime a week.”

See the difference the company earns per employee and the payment made to the supplier’s employees. Apple shows profits at the expense of lives of Taiwanese workers.  The workers don’t have much of a grievance mechanism in China as the government stated that the suicides are within the normal suicide rate. Can Apple investors sacrifice some profit margin for safety and security of the contractual workers?

Another old example is the class action suit since 2001 on Wal-Mart Stores that involved 1.5 million current and former Wal-Mart female employees. It is the largest workplace bias case in US history.

 4.    Human Rights Reporting

 The biggest challenge is that most of the human rights abuses are not reported. The victims of human rights exploitation hold little power in comparison to the exploiters. They can hardly take up the might of powerful businesses when they are struggling to get basic food and shelter. Secondly, in the developing and emerging countries, corruption levels are generally high. Hence, media, law enforcement agencies etc. are bribed by the power players to silence the victims. However, with internet and social media, things are gradually changing. People have a voice and collectively they can fight.

UN Guiding Principle 21 lays out the requirement for companies to communicate human rights impact externally. It states -

 “In order to account for how they address their human rights impacts, business enterprises should be prepared to communicate this externally, particularly when concerns are raised by or on behalf of affected stakeholders. Business enterprises whose operations or operating contexts pose risks of severe human rights impacts should report formally on how they address them. In all instances, communications should:

(a) Be of a form and frequency that reflect an enterprise’s human rights impacts and that are accessible to its intended audiences;

(b) Provide information that is sufficient to evaluate the adequacy of an enterprise’s response to the particular human rights impact involved;

(c) In turn not pose risks to affected stakeholders, personnel or to legitimate requirements of commercial confidentiality.”

 As per the UN principles, the reports must cover appropriate qualitative and quantitative indicators, feedback from internal and external sources including affected stakeholders.

Risk managers can evaluate the reports and the reporting process to ensure that all risks are properly addressed. They should evaluate whether cautionary steps are taken and nothing is being done to exacerbate the situation. They should highlight severe or irreversible risks to the management to ensure appropriate decisions are taken.

Closing Thoughts

 Inequalities in income are the main cause of human rights abuse. The rich want to get richer at the expense of blood and sweat of the poor, and sometimes life. The diamond manufacturers and sellers took the right step to publish that they do not source blood diamonds. Since 2003, the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS), supported by national and international legislation, has sought to certify the legitimate origin of uncut diamonds. Trade organizations – International Diamond Manufacturers Association (IDMA) and the World Federation of Diamond Bourses (WFDB) – representing virtually all significant processors and traders – have established a regimen of self-regulation.

Other industries, be it technology, electronics or textile manufacturers,  need to come out with similar steps to stop human rights abuse. The risk managers have a vital role to play in it. If we do not do anything, we are cheating this and the next generation of their right to live happily.

References:

1.  Investing the Right Way – A Guide for Investors on Business and Human Rights – By Institute of Human Rights and Business
2. Singur farmland-  Tata Motors conflict
3. Apple financial ratios
4. Foxconn Case Study
5. Diamond industry sales clauses
6. 2013 RIMS Global Risk Management Survey

 

Indian Banks Give Customer Service for Money Laundering

Recently a string operation exposed money laundering services provided by some Indian private banks. The employees and bank managers were caught on camera advising the disguised reporter on ways and means he can convert his illicit money into legal money.

1. Caught in the act

Some of the helpful advice given by bankers included:

1. Open multiple accounts so that the amount remains below the reporting limits. Do not deposit over Rs 10 lakhs (Rs 1 million) in a single instance.
2. Obtain a demand draft from a Cooperative Bank and deposit the draft with us. Cooperative Banks do not require an account hence it will be easy to obtain a draft. Since cash would not be directly deposited and private banks do not have to check the source of funds, the deposit will not raise any alerts.
3. Route the cash money through another bank to avoid detection.
4. The Income Tax act prohibits keeping cash in bank lockers. However, if you do not inform the bank staff, they can look the other way.
5. Open an NRI account and slowly transferring the money offshore. We need a passport and visa for opening an NRI account. No pan card required.  Deposit Rs 25 lakhs per month. Better still start by opening a NRO account.

The bankers offered to visit the client’s residence to open an account and collect the money. One has to watch the video clippings to see the level of customer service provided by the bankers. No one can say they were not being helpful.

2. Standard response from senior management

As expected the senior management of the banks denied all knowledge, claimed they maintained highest ethical standards, suspended the branch managers and the staff, and commenced an internal investigation. But this is an open secret. Every business person in India knows that the banks will help them convert black money into white and transfer illegal money. If it was not so, how can a parallel black money economy exist in India for so long. Did the expose really shock anyone?

3. Lip service by regulators

Of course Reserve Bank of India has given detailed guidelines on Know Your Customer and submission of suspicious transaction reporting. There is only theoretical application of guidelines of Financial Action Task Force (FATF) on Anti Money Laundering (AML) standards and on Combating Financing of Terrorism (CFT). The Financial Intelligence Unit of India received just over 30,000 suspicious transaction reports in 2011-2012. It received 100,00,000 cash transaction reports. If you read these numbers in reference to the size of banking business in India, it would not be even .01% of the total yearly transactions.

In February 2012, the director of the Central Bureau of Investigation had said that Indians have $500 billion of illegal funds in foreign tax havens, more than any other country. Some reports estimate the amount over a trillion.

Hence, can we actually believe that regulators and bankers are serious about preventing money laundering in India? The annual report 2011-2012 of Financial Intelligence Unit doesn’t really mention any investigations done that would make the bankers uncomfortable. In India the detection and investigation capabilities of financial regulators is still in nascent stages.  Unlike US which has full-fledged organizations and systems to check money laundering.

Closing Thoughts

In the pursuit of growth numbers bankers are willing to compromise ethics and legal requirements. However, in Indian society because of the high level corruption, most businesses are doing the same. In such a scenario, it amounts to pot calling the kettle black. Unless we really get serious about removing corruption, as a society we can’t succeed. Some things required are – public to withdraw support from companies using unethical practices to succeed, regulators take organizations to task, and government prosecutes politicians and other individuals for dealing with illicit money. Till this happens only media will benefit by doing exposes to improve their ratings.

References:

1. Cobra Post Expose
2. Financial Intelligence Unit India
3. Black Money Market in India

Bharti Walmart India – Internal FCPA Investigation – Part I

Walmart after the Mexico US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act investigation identified India operations as a high risk. It commenced an internal investigation with the help of KPMG India and law firm Greenberg Traurig. Recently CFO and five officers of legal team were suspended. The legal team’s job entailed procuring licenses required for stores and other real estate approvals, taxation etc. Bharti Walmart has opened 18 stores till date. Hence, the suspicion is that these officers paid bribes to get the licenses.

According to the Economic Times article, multiple government permissions are required from the government. The Retail Association of India lists 51 different approvals from 32 different agencies. Seeing the corruption index of India and the way government departments’ function, I would be very surprised if an organization manages to obtain all the relevant licenses without any grease payments. Hence, the question is how will the organizations manage to function without paying bribes?

1.      Dubious Dealings

Considering the huge operations of Bharti group, I would be very surprised if the bribes were paid without senior management approval. Most of the liaisons work has senior managers’ tacit or explicit approval. Therefore, is it right to suspend some after obtaining licenses. What happens in such a case to the license? Will the license be revoked, cancelled, or returned? If not, what is stopping the organizations from first taking the licenses by paying bribes and then doing a clean-up exercise to show their commitment to ethics?

2.      Joint Venture Liabilities

The second issue that crops up is the working of the joint venture in such circumstances.  Let us assume the investigation reveals bribes were paid. In such a situation, will Bharti group be expected to pay back the bribe money? Secondly, if the US authorities under a civil case fine Walmart for FCPA contravention, will Bharti be expected to pay the fine. Seeing the trend the fine could be huge and would wipe out profitability of the company. Moreover, US Department of Justice can pursue criminal liabilities. Then will the Indian officers be implicated for the same.

3.      Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Retail Industry

The government has recently allowed FDI in retail industry. The challenge is that in India, most of the retail operations operate by paying bribes at different levels. Hence, a foreign investor will not get a level playing field as the anti-corruption laws of their country bind them. The situation is serious. For instance, the next stage after obtaining licenses would require importing goods.  The FCPA strictly prohibits paying bribes to custom officers whereas in India this is a common business practice. Can an organization wait for months to get its stock cleared by the custom officers? Now the foreign investors will analyse the reward versus risk scenario of their business plans for investing in retail industry in India.

Closing Thoughts

The case opens up interesting aspects of risks of doing business in India. Corruption poses serious obstacles in doing fair business dealings. The FCPA and laws of various countries strictly prohibit paying bribes to foreign officials. The US government has followed some stringent measures against companies contravening the laws. Under such circumstances will the joint ventures between foreign investors and Indian counterparts work?  India cannot change overnight, so what is the solution? Share your thoughts with me on this.

References:

Bharti Walmart suspends CFO, legal team due to FCPA bribery probe

Two Lessons from Purti Group Investigations

Nitin Gadkari, the BJP President, is under the scanner in respect to his Purti group. The allegations are that multiple layers of companies were created with numerous ghost investors. Some of the companies exist only on paper and the directors are all employees of Mr Gadkari. The Income Tax department and the Registrar of Companies have commenced investigations after the stories appeared in the media. I have a couple of questions about the whole thing.

1.     Unqualified Directors

Until fourteen months back, Mr Gadkari was the chairman of Purti Power and Sugar Limited (PPSL). Presently Mr Sudhir Wamanrao Diwe, Mr Gadkari’s personal assistant is the managing director. Moreover, as per media reports “four directors of Purti’s investment companies  - Kawdu Zade, Manohar Panse, Nishant Agnihotri and Sagar Vikaskotwaliwale – are either close associates or employees of Gadkari. While Zade is the accountant of Gadkari’s household, Peens is his driver.” Additionally, the four were directors in 16 corporate companies holding major shares in PPSL before 2010.

A fundamental question out here is why the director’s profession is a big deal. As per company law, any one can obtain a Director Identification Number (DIN) and be a director of the company. The DIN application requests for the residential address of the person. No details regarding professional qualifications or background are required.

The joke doing the rounds is that every driver now wants to be Nitin Gadkari’s driver. Seriously speaking, the onus of responsibility of appointing well-qualified directors rests with the promoters. It is their choice. In most cases, directors are friends and acquaintances of Chairman or CEO. Hence, the question is should the Corporate Laws be modified to ensure the quality of directors appointed?

2.     Fictitious Addresses of Companies

The second issue is that a number of group companies of PPSL are not operating from the addresses given to the Registrar of Companies. IT department visited the addresses in Mumbai including Damji Shamji Trade Centre at Vidyavihar (West), Dube Chawl at Andheri Kurla Road, two locations at Fort and Gupta Compound at Thane.

Further, as per Times of India – “four shareholding companies — Seven-Eleven Sales and Marketing Pvt Ltd, Ashwami Sales and Marketing Pvt, Nivita Trades Pvt Ltd and Rigma Fintrade Pvt Ltd — were shown as operating from the Vidyavihar office. Interestingly, at least three of these offices had earlier shown a room at Dube Chawl at the Andheri Kurla Road as their address. TOI’s investigation had found that the offices never existed in the chawl.

TOI had earlier reported that some two dozen companies had unverifiable addresses.”

As per the Companies Law while getting incorporated promoters have to give the correspondence address till its registered office is established. Secondly, the law states:

“(1) A company shall, on and from the fifteenth day of its incorporation and at all times thereafter, have a registered office capable of receiving and acknowledging all communications and notices as may be addressed to it.

(2) The company shall furnish to the Registrar verification of its registered office within a period of thirty days of its incorporation in such manner as may be prescribed.”

Since the companies were incorporated a decade back, the basic question is where the communication was sent from the Registrar of Companies. Secondly, at the time of registration and future years why the Registrar of Companies missed out that a multi-crore business is being run from a chawl . Is that not sufficient to raise alarm bells? How did the auditors of the company approve the corporate governance standard and where did they audit the books?

This would not be a one off case. There would be numerous cases where the registered address is fictitious despite that fact that Company Law prescribes serious penalties for furnishing incorrect information at the time of incorporation. Hence, the question is why are the review and investigation procedures at Registrar of Companies not improved to reduce wrongdoing?

Closing thoughts

The case has highlighted the prevailing malpractices in the corporate world. As the investigations are going on more dirt will be uncovered. However, the government instead of making a Congress – BJP power struggle, should introduce legal processes and procedures to curb these misconducts. The government should modify the new companies bill to address these loopholes. Lastly, the auditors liability for signing off on corporate governance standard of the company should be clearly mentioned when the basic tenants are not met.

References:

I-T heat on companies linked to Nitin Gadkari

Coal Gate Scam – Should Auditors Comment on Policy Decisions?

The Coal Gate Scam report has squarely put the loss of Rs. 1.86 lakh crores (USD 35. 097 billion) at the Prime Ministers door. Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report states that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agreed to introduce competitive bidding for allocation of coal blocks way back in October 2004. However, his office indulged in delay tactics of approving the revised policy. This resulted in allocation of coal blocks according to the old policy introduced in 1993. Failure to use competitive bidding resulted in a loss of Rs. 1.86 lakh crores (USD 35.097 billion).

This raises interesting questions from the corporate sector perspective. Should auditors see the validity and applicability of policies? Alternatively, should they restrict their role to the compliance of existing policies?  What happens when a policy or standard operating procedure of an organization is redundant however is still being followed? If competitors are using better processes, technology and policies than the organization, what role should auditors play in it?

1.     Delaying Policies Becomes a Political Game

According to the CAG report, the Screening Committee allocated blocks and the process lacked transparency. Allegations are that private companies with political links benefited at the expense of others. However, competitive bidding policy could have been introduced with an amendment from the administrative desk. Prime Minister’s role becomes critical as he was also fulfilling the responsibilities of Minister of Coal. CAG says he made it into a bigger issue that the policy should be changed for all minerals and not just coal; hence the process for making such large-scale policy change was different. This allowed the coal ministry to follow the 1993 process.

This happens in the corporate sector too. For instance, an employee or a small group suggest a change to an existing control process that will take just one man-month effort. Some others with vested interests do not wish for the change to occur. However, they can’t reject the suggestion for strengthening controls without looking bad. Hence, to stall the project, they add a few more suggestions which make the project larger into 24 man-months effort. Now the change can only happen once the huge budget is approved. Since, the project is not priority; it stays on the bottom of the budget approval list. Hence, status quo remains and subsequently someone exploits the control weakness to conduct a fraud.

In such a situation, as an internal auditor would you highlight the initial attempt to strengthen controls and put responsibility on the other group for delaying the change? Do we as internal auditors go back in such depth to find out what projects or policies were kept pending approval and they had such a huge negative impact?

2.     Auditor’s Role in Policy Review

The Supreme Court has upheld CAGs power to comment on policies. Justices R M Lodha and A R Dave bench said “Do not confuse the constitutional office of CAG with that of an auditor of a company or corporation.” This response was in respect to a petitioner’s contention that CAG should restrict itself to auditing expenditure and not comment on the government’s rational of policy decisions. The bench had further added – “CAG is not the traditional Munimji to prepare only balance sheets. It is constitutionally mandated to examine the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of the decisions of the government in using resources. If the CAG will not do this, then who will?“

This viewpoint raises some interesting points for internal auditors in the corporate world. Should auditors be commenting on strategic or policy decisions of the company?

For instance, the company decides to use print media for advertising open job positions. However, it is much cheaper to use job portals and social media. These significantly reduce the cost of recruitment. Should an auditor restrict himself to checking that all expenditure is authentic or question the hiring policy?

Another aspect is the strategy decisions. Let us say, Company A decided not to enter into the emerging markets, whereas Company B operating in the same industry entered the emerging markets and increased the profitability tremendously. Should an auditor audit strategic decisions, and not just say that it is management responsibility. Where is the line of demarcation drawn in respect of corporate internal audit?

Institute of Internal Auditors new standard applicable from 2013 ‘Achievement of the organization’s strategic objectives’ states that – “The internal audit activity must evaluate risk exposures relating to the organization’s governance, operations, and information systems regarding the achievement of the organization’s strategic objectives”.  Hence, should we conclude that evaluating strategic decisions comes under internal audit purview?

3.     Auditor’s Role in Calculating Presumptive Loss

The CAG audit reports on 2G licenses and Coal Block allocations have raised a storm due to the calculation of presumptive loss figures. The government’s contention is that CAG should not be calculating the opportunity loss, as policy decisions are taken to benefit the public.

CAG however, contended that – “We had never commented on government policies, neither did we ever say that auction was the only route or that all natural resources should be auctioned. In both 2G spectrum licences and coal block allocations, we had only commented on the ‘effectiveness or non-implementation’ of policies. The presumptive loss or windfall gain figures are only to highlight the serious issues of an act of commission during implementation of government policies.”

In the corporate world, internal auditors make an observation and restrict their recommendations to suggest improvements. In rare cases, a cost-benefit analysis is done on the impact of the control weakness. We generally fail to draw management attention to the seriousness of the issue, as they are no numbers given. Should corporate internal auditors change their approach to audit work to give a cost-benefit analysis for their observations? Will that garner more attention from the management and initiate action?

Closing Thoughts

These are questions worth debating about and there are no easy answers. The business world internal auditors can learn quite a few lessons from the government auditors. They are doing a good job of raising contentious issues. Below is a poll to assess your views.

References:

1. CAG not a ‘munimji’ of govt’s balance sheet: SC
2. CoalGate: CAG does not let Manmohan, PMO off the hook
3.  Performance Audit of Allocation of Coal Blocks and Augmentation of Coal Production (Ministry of Coal)

Why Auditors Fail To Detect Frauds?

When media reports a new fraud, the first few thoughts of public are – “What were the auditors doing? How did they miss it? Were they involved?” The auditors get labelled as morons, conspirators or criminals. Generally most people jump to the conclusion that auditors had malafide intentions and became accomplices to get more business. While this may be true in some cases, auditors need the benefit of doubt. They sometimes genuinely miss the cases despite their best effort to diligently perform their duties. This post is an attempt to explain why auditors miss the frauds.

I want to share a joke with you before I explain. Two drunkards were walking on a railway track. The first said to other – “I am really tired, I hope the steps will end soon.” The second replied – ‘Yeah. I wish they had put the handrails at a better height, my back is killing me.”

1. Auditors responsibility to detect frauds

We can laugh at this, but if I say most of us don’t see clearly, there will a lot of angry reactions. So I am not saying anything, and am requesting you to watch this video.

Now did you see the moon walking bear?

Auditors have the same problem. They have to to give a true and fair opinion on the financial statements. They are not required to focus on detecting frauds. Hence, the audit programs are not designed to conduct tests to  detect fraud symptoms and probability. Therefore, with no specific coverage auditors fail at detecting frauds. Extract from Section 143 of New Companies Bill is given below:

“The auditor shall make a report to the members of the company on the accounts examined by him and on every financial statements which are required by or under this Act to be laid before the company in general meeting and the report shall after taking into account the provisions of this Act, the accounting and auditing standards and matters which are required to be included in the audit report under the provisions of this Act or any rules made thereunder or under any order made under sub-section (11) and to the best of his information and knowledge, the said accounts, financial statements give a true and fair view of the state of the company’s affairs as at the end of its financial year and profit or loss and cash flow for the year and such other matters as may be prescribed.”

2. Auditors punishment on failure

The second question frequently debated is – “Should auditors be punished if they fail to detect frauds?” Section 147, clause 4 of New Companies Bill states auditor’s liabilities in respect to fraud in the following words:

“Where, in case of audit of a company being conducted by an audit firm, it is proved that the partner or partners of the audit firm has or have acted in a fraudulent manner or abetted or colluded in any fraud by, or in relation to or by, the company or its directors or officers, the liability, whether civil or criminal as provided in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, for such act shall be of the partner or partners of the audit firm and of the firm jointly and severally and such partner or partners of the audit firm shall also be punishable in the manner as provided in section 447.”

This clause puts auditors on shaky ground. It is difficult to prove innocence once a fraud is detected. How can an auditor state – “I did my work properly, saw these documents, looked at the same audit evidence but didn’t find anything wrong with it.” Most will jump to the conclusion that the auditor knowingly ignored all the evidence. So here is another video. Watch it, and then you will see how this situation can occur.

According to various experiments, 75% of the people failed to observe the person swap in the experiment.

Think of this from an audit evidence perspective. An auditor is checking 100 vouchers with supports. One voucher among the 100 is fraudulent. What is the probability of the auditor noticing it? One can safely assume that it will be less than 25%.

Is it surprising that auditors fail to detect frauds after seeing these experiments. Though they are trained, they are human. The same psychology works with them too.

Closing thoughts

The success rate of detecting frauds will be higher when the auditors – external and internal – have specific responsibility to detect frauds. Without the specific responsibility, regulators can continue to complain and investors will share their anguish, however all will be futile. The laws need to be devised to hold someone responsibly for detecting frauds. What is your opinion?

A modified version of this article was published in the Middle East Accountant Magazine.

LIBOR Scandal – What Went Wrong?

This week Barclays Plc made banking history for the wrong reasons. The unheard occurred – the chairman, chief executive officer and chief operating officer – all resigned within one week. While chairman of Barclays, Marcus Agius took the blame saying “the buck stops with me“, initially Bob Diamond said the incident was “inappropriate“. An understatement or lack of adequate vocabulary for describing a manipulation with such huge impact on the financial markets? LIBOR is used as a benchmark for prices of approximately $ 350 trillion of financial products. British and US authorities fined Barclays $453 million!

In the parliamentary hearing yesterday, Mr. Diamond did modify his viewpoint and said “behavior is inexcusable“. In the hearing, Mr. Diamond implicated Bank of England and the Financial Regulatory Authority. With a dozen more banks under investigation, this story of rigging interest rates  isn’t going to blow over. It is just going to get murkier with time.

Watch this video to get an inside view on the procedures for calculation of LIBOR and the lack of monitoring by the regulators. Some speakers have given volatile views, but these are definitely worth listening in case of such a serious breach of business ethics.

In the last couple of months, titans of banking industry are facing the public ire. First Jamie Dimon was called in for questioning by US senate, yesterday Bob Diamond was questioned by UK parliament. The winds are blowing in a different direction; public is outraged by lackadaisical attitude of bankers towards ethical practices. Since the financial crises, many have written about the need to change culture within the banking organizations. However, from the frequent scandalous news stories, it doesn’t look that the wizards of the industry are understanding the social strategic inflection point.

With senior bankers’ ambition to join billionaires club, even the best minds have developed blind spots. The ambition is for more and more money; they have forgotten that more is not always better. We need banking CEOs to have the ethical mindset of Dalai Lama to bring about a positive change in the industry. Is it possible, what do you say?

References:

Barclays CEO Bob Diamond Resigns After Rates Scandal – Business Standard

SEBI Revises Consent Process

While Rajat Gupta, ex-board member of Goldman Sachs is facing the trial by fire on insider trading charges in US, Stock Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has tightened the screws on the consent process for stock market manipulations and offences.

SEBI last week revised the earlier rules passed in March 2007. Some of the critical features of the revised consent process are:

1. Face the Music

“Certain defaults including insider trading, front running, failure to make an open offer, redress investor grievances and respond to the summons issued by SEBI are excluded from the consent process. The defaults falling in the category of fraudulent and unfair trade practices, which in the opinion of SEBI are very serious and/or have caused substantial losses to the investors, shall also not be consented.”

The details are below:-

“SEBI shall not settle the defaults listed below:
i. Insider trading i.e. violation of Regulation 3 and 4 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading)Regulations, 1992;

ii. Serious fraudulent and unfair trade practices which, in the opinion of the Board, cause substantial losses to investors and/or affects their rights, especially retail investors and small shareholders or have or may have market wide impact, except those defaults where the entity makes good the losses due to the investors;

iii. Failure to make the open offer (except where the entity agrees to make the open offer or if in the opinion of the Board, the open offer is not beneficial to the shareholders and / or the case is referred for adjudication);

iv. Front-running; for the purpose of this circular, front running means usage of non public information to directly or indirectly, buy or sell securities or enter into options or futures contracts, in advance of a substantial order, on an impending transaction, in the same or related securities or futures or options
contracts, in anticipation that when the information becomes public; the price of such securities or contracts may change;

v. Defaults relating to manipulation of net asset value or other mutual funds defaults where the actions of the asset management company (AMC)/ mutual fund (MF)/sponsor, result in substantial losses to the unit holders, except cases where the entity has made good the losses of the unit holders to the satisfaction of the Board;

vi. Failure to redress investor grievances(except cases where the issue involved is only of delayed redressal);

vii. Failure to make such disclosures under the ICDR and Debt Securities Regulations, which in the opinion of the Board, materially affect the right of the investors Non-compliance of summons issued by SEBI;

ix. Non compliance of an order passed by the Adjudicating Officer (AO), Designated Member (DM) or Whole Time Member (WTM);

x. Any other default by an applicant who continues to be non-compliant with any order passed by the (AO) or (DM) or (WTM).”

This means that where SEBI considers breach of law or listing guidelines, the companies, investment managers, brokers etc. won’t be able to pay a fine and get away with it. Previously, on such charges, SEBI allowed them to pay the fine while not admitting guilt and sometimes by voluntarily agreeing to debar from the  from stock markets. Now without being allowed to go through the consent process, the organizations and persons alleged to have committed the above-mentioned acts will have to go through a legal process for criminal offences except in some exceptional cases. SEBI has allowed itself some room for maneuverability for some cases. In regular cases, now an organization can go through the consent process only for small technical breaches.

2. One Time Lucky

“No consent application shall be considered, if any violation is committed within a period of two years from the date of any consent order. However, if the applicant has already obtained more than two consent orders, no consent application shall be considered for a period of three years from the date of the last order.”

Hence, this clause allows leeway once only in a couple of years. If an organization has already gone through a consent process, it is not going to get away easily without some criminal charges the next time round. The practice of organizations to claim a mistake has been made every year whenever they get caught will have to stop.

Closing Thoughts

The rules are good. SEBI is finally gearing itself to govern and regulate the stock markets properly. This move in the long-run will build investor confidence and dissuade asset managers, brokers and organizations from indulging in malpractices. Reliance Industries has an ongoing case for insider trading, along with a couple of other banks for front running and stock market manipulations. Reliance has appealed to the Bombay Courts to be allowed to go through the consent order process available before as it’s case is  from 2007.

The method SEBI chooses to deal with the older cases, will decide the fate of many organizations. It appears the organizations are worried, and that for regulators is a good strategy. The last high profile case of consent was of Anil Ambani group in which the group paid a Rs 50 crore (USD 8.93 million ) fine. Hence, in all likelihood the organizations with pending cases will either have to pay high fees or face criminal charges.

References:

1. Streamlining of Consent Process
2. Modified Consent Process Circular
3. Reliance Industries moves Bombay High Court on new consent order rules

An Update of Adidas India Euro 125 Million Fraud Story

In the last couple of weeks, some startling information was revealed by the media about the fraud. To recap, Adidas global management disclosed euro 125 million (Rs 870 crore, USD 157.68 million) fraud in India operations in the first quarter end report of 2012. Subsequently, Adidas India management filed a police complaint against the ex-CEO Subhinder Prem Singh and ex-COO Vishnu Bhagat. Now the battle lines are drawn and allegations are flying. Here are some surprising revelations of the case so far.

Adidas management is alleging “commercial irregularities” and mismanagement of Reebok operations for last five years. Reebok and Adidas India operations were merged under Mr. Singh last year. Mr. Singh portrayed it that the allegations are more about a power struggle between the two groups and Adidas India operations has similar number of unreported frauds, as mentioned in the earlier post.

Some financial numbers and other details that were reported by the media are:

1) Profitability of Adidas & Reebok India

An Economic Times article stated that Reebok India March 2010 reported Rs 786.1 crore (USD 142 million) total income with a loss of Rs 40 lakhs (USD 72,000) . On the other hand, Adidas India operations showed a profit of Rs 455.6 crore (USD 82.75 million) for the year ending March 2010, with a profit after tax of Rs 9.01 crore (Rs 1.63 million). Mr. Singh attributed the difference to two aspects. First, Reebok India had a share capital of Rs 23 crore (USD 4.16 million) in comparison to Adidas India’s share capital of Rs 99 crore (USD 17.94 million), hence has to pay interest on borrowed funds. Second, Reebok India paid a royalty of 5% on sales, that amounted to Rs 110 crore ( USD 19.93 million), whereas Adidas India isn’t required to pay royalty. Hence, Mr. Singh’s contention is that Reebok India  performed better than Adidas India.

This practice of charging royalty to one arm of the company and not the other in the same country, is somewhat controversial. It raises questions on the transfer pricing practices followed by the company.  The Income Tax department may view it as an intentional strategy to deflate profits to avoid taxation.

Subsequent to the story breaking, the Income Tax department has commenced an inquiry and issued notices to executives for probing financial wrong-doing in last four years to determine tax evasion.

2) Police Complaint

“The FIR, which has been seen by Bloomberg UTV says that: 

- Irregularities include over-invoicing to the tune of Rs 147 crore (USD 26.64 million)
- Running a false franchisee referral programme, receipts from which were about Rs 114 crore (USD 20.66 million)
- Maintaining four secret warehouses where company goods were diverted, all of which have been sealed and goods confiscated
- Raising fake invoices of about Rs 98 crore (USD 17.76 million) to show higher sales and claim promotions, bonus and incentives
- And collusion with some customers to aid the two officers in the scam”

Behind the allegations, the details when pieced together give the following story.

According to the Economic Times story, Mr. Singh started gunning for the top job of the merged entity from 2008, knowing that merger was inevitable. He pursued expansion plans to show numbers and beat internal competition, at the expense of profitability.

The source of the problems appears to be the minimum guarantee strategy adopted for store franchises.  Reebok had 100 stores in 2003, and grew to 800 stores. As per the minimum guarantee program, the franchisee was given a specific sum, irrespective whether the company earned any money from the store. Small time business persons were invited by Reebok to open stores and these stores didn’t make any money. Hence, the costs ran high, with no revenues. Rumors are that some money was earned by Mr. Singh privately for opening these stores.

Another information shared by police is that Adidas management claim that Mr. Singh and Mr. Bhagat diverted stock to four secret warehouses near Delhi doesn’t hold much water as no stocks were found in the warehouses. Adidas India claims to have confiscated goods worth Rs 63 crores (USD 11.41 million) from these warehouses. According to the police, three of the four warehouses were empty, and the fourth the new management has taken the goods.

However, from the information available so far, it appears that sales figures may have been inflated, and closing stock deflated to show higher profitability and meet the growth targets. It is possible, that false sales invoices were created and the goods transferred to the warehouses. There are allegations from store owners also that there are discrepancies between statement of accounts. The debit and credit balances significantly differ. Hence, the sale invoices may have been made in the franchises name without an actual sale. If this is true, most of the internal controls were over ridden by management.

Another aspect reported was that German management at headquarters was aware of the complaints and various issues cropping up, however chose to ignore the same due the great performance being shown. They apparently didn’t take proper action on the auditors report also. Of course, there are likely to be questions raised as to quality of work done external and internal auditors.

With all the information available till date, the fraud figures don’t add up to Rs 870 crore (USD 157.68 million). The police investigators are stating that beside the complaint, no evidence has been provided by Adidas management till date. Reading the corporate boxing match, Registrar of Companies under Ministry of Corporate Affairs has commenced an investigation.

Closing Thoughts

With all the dirty linen being washed in public domain by Adidas group, it has attracted regulators attention. If the plan was to browbeat Mr. Singh, without adequate evidence the prosecution will fail. If in reality all the allegations can be proved, then Mr. Singh along with a number of senior executives are in hot soup. Till date it is the largest fraud case reported by a multinational company in India. Let us wait and watch to get some more juicy information.

References:

1. How Adidas Slipped in India – Economic Times
2. Reebok under tax lens, Adidas seizes goods from warehouses
3. The Reebok Adidas scam – another corporate saga in courts

Adidas India Euro 125 Million Fraud Story

The traders of good soles appear to have sold their souls. Adidas has filed a criminal complaint for euro 125 million irregularities reported in Indian operations in the first quarter results of 2012. The complaint mentions “commercial irregularities uncovered at Reebok India”. After Satyam, this is the biggest fraud reported in a private sector organization in India.

Briefly, Adidas acquired Reebok a few years back, however, the Indian operations were merged in 2011. Subhinder Prem Singh, head of Reebok India was appointed as the managing director of the merged entity. In March 2012, both Subhinder Prem Singh and the chief operating officer Vishnu Bhagat left the company. Very few details are available of the case till date, but the twists and turns are interesting. From the looks of it, this is going to be full-blown war and a lot of skeletons are coming out. Below are the events till date.

1. Adidas announcement on 30 April 2012

Following extract is from the Adidas press release. The statement states that commercial irregularities to the tune of euro 125 million ( Rs 870 crore, USD 161 million) have occurred prior to 2012 and prior year financial statements may require re-statement.

“In addition, Management also announces that commercial irregularities discovered at Reebok India Company, in India, will likely affect the consolidated financial statements of the adidas Group. The currently estimated maximum negative impact could be up to a pre-tax amount of € 125 million. Due to the sensitivity of the on-going investigation, specific details will be disclosed as appropriate in due course. As these irregularities have been deemed to have occurred prior to the 2012 financial year, the adidas Group might have to restate prior-year consolidated financial statements in line with the requirements of IAS 8. The financial statements of adidas AG will not be affected by this issue. Management assures its stakeholders that it has, and will continue to, vigorously pursue a course of action to protect the Group’s interests, which has already resulted in the appointment of a new local leadership team in India at the end of March.

Under this new leadership team, Management is further planning an accelerated restructuring of its business activities in India, including significant changes to its commercial business practices. This could lead to additional one-time charges in the remaining quarters of 2012 in an estimated amount of up to € 70 million.“

2. Counter attack by Subhinder Prem Singh

After this announcement, Mr. Singh who initially reported that he left the organization on his own, clearly stated that he was terminated. He filed a case for damages of Rs 15 crore (USD 2.83 million, Euro 2.19 million) against Adidas. The Economic Times gave his version of the story. He says:

a) Adidas headquarters were “fully in the loop” on how Indian operations are run and it is not a one-man show. The finance chief of Indian operations was appointed by Adidas group last year.

b) He was called to Arizona, US on March 25, 2012 and after he presented the annual business plan, he was forced to leave and promised a severance package. Adidas did not give him a reason at the time of termination and he received a mail from Adidas subsequently that he was terminated due to “financial irregularities”. He denied any involvement in financial irregularities.

3) Further on he alleges that he exposed three major frauds in Adidas. He has given this statement on record - ”The biggest scam was the scavenger deal (dumping rejects) running into Rs 200 crore, where about Rs 20 crore was illegally made by senior officials. However, the scam was brushed under the carpet because it related to Adidas and not Reebok, and the request to notify the fraud to the auditors at the year-end was turned down by the headquarters.” .

3. A few quick ones

a) Previous Frauds – While details are still not known, Mr. Singh’s statement about three previous frauds is definitely jaw dropping. He mentions Rs 200 crore (USD 37.36 million, Euro  28.15 million)) fraud in which senior officials made money. He doesn’t mention whether he terminated the senior officials or took legal action against them. As the managing director of the organization, he was required to investigate the frauds, take action and report the same to headquarters and auditors. He mentions that he sought permission from head office to report fraud to auditors. How can that nullify his responsibility as the head of the entity?

b) Dumping rejects - In Indian organizations sometimes, in rejects sales there is a percentage cut taken by the management. The modus operandi is that some good stuff is passed by the quality inspection team as sub-standard or rejects. These rejects are then sold at nominal values to previously selected vendors. The vendors unofficially give a percentage of the real value of the products to the management. This risk can be easily mitigated by frequently checking the quantum and quality of rejects and getting an independent valuation done of the products. Ideally, Mr Singh should have initiated these risk mitigation steps if he knew the problem. He doesn’t mention this, so can he escape liability?

c) Auditors Role – An Indian firm N. Narasimham & Co. is the auditor of Reebok India.  In this case, KPMG is the group auditor, and till now neither of the auditors have made any statements. However, KPMG has stated that they did not audit Adidas or Reebok India for the past several years. But, as per recent reports in 2010 KPMG was appointed as a forensic investigator for Reebok and gave a clean report. If so many frauds were occurring in the organization, how come they did not detect and report anything previously?

In India, sometimes auditors take kickbacks to hide frauds, or don’t report frauds because they wish to maintain client relationships. Hence, again the question of auditor independence, liability and involvement are likely to arise.  One has to wait and see whether this becomes another incident similar to Satyam PWC case.

d) Risk Management- The 2011 annual report of Adidas states that they upgraded the risk management IT solution in 2011. The Group Risk Management department maintains the risk and opportunity management system. The description of risk management process and techniques used is at par with the best-in-class. The supervisory board is responsible for monitoring the risk management system. According to the annual report, the audit committee in September 2011 checked group wide effectiveness of risk management, internal control system, internal audit and compliance organization. In November 2011, it discussed the internal audit report for the year and then also planned scope for 2012. The question is that if the frauds relate to previous years, then how come with all this narration in the annual report, the frauds remained undetected. Is the description risk management practices for the consumption of the investors, or do these practices actually function?

On May 2, 2012 Transworld Business reported that a former senior marketing manager of Adidas, Britney Obstar, was sentenced for master-minding a fraud scheme of USD 336,000. She got payments made to her husband’s company for services that were never rendered. She continued the fraud for over a year. This definitely shows that there are some loop holes in internal control systems for monitoring senior management activities and transactions.

Closing thoughts

This will be an interesting case to watch. It is apparent that global organizations face challenges in managing local subsidiaries. Without an efficient management and effective internal control and risk management systems, the corporate office will remain blissfully ignorant until it is too late. In India, the corporate governance practices applicable to public listed companies do not apply to private limited subsidiaries of international companies. Hence, the practices that are strictly followed at head offices may not be adhered to at local Indian offices, unless the organization is culturally and technologically integrated. This case will bring out a number of risk management lessons for global organizations. Hence, let us wait for the story to unfold further.

References:

1. AD-HOC: adidas Group announces preliminary first quarter 2012 results
2. Criminal complaint filed by Adidas
3. Ex-MD Subhinder Singh sues Adidas over fraud charge, seeks Rs 15 crore in damages
4. Former Adidas Marketing Manager Sentenced for Fraud.