Revisors rolle og ansvar i forhold til besvigelser i OW Bunker sagen

Aise Demiraslan & Fitore Xhemajli

Studenteropgave: Kandidatafhandlinger


The purpose of this thesis will be to examine OW Bunker and the responsibilities an auditor has.Contributing with main themes such as, what role do auditors have when discovering fraud.Moreover, whether the auditors from Deloitte have lived up to their responsibilities in regards to thefraud that have been discovered in OW Bunker will be examined too.While examining this issue, the Fraud Triangle, the Fraud Scale, and the ISA 240 will be taken intoconsideration. Two cases will be contributed in our analyses that have been published by the auditcommittee (23/2010,47/2004). Thereby, seeking an understanding of when and where an auditorcan incur responsibilities when fraud has been detected. However, these cases will also help createan understanding of when an auditor is liable for fraud and when an auditor can be acquitted.Moreover, our thesis will also use interviews in order to answer the main themes given in thisthesis. There are three interviews, where questions have been prepared separately, for each of them.With the help of the answers acquired from the interviews, this will contribute to the analysis andfurther elaboration will be conducted. This is to understand whether the auditors from Deloitte haveperformed their role in relation to responsibilities in regards to fraud. Moreover, whether they canbe held accountable for the prospectus. We have therefore used the Fraud Triangle and the FraudScale for seeking knowledge on why the management had a need to conduct fraud. Furthermore, itshould be highlighted that the case of OW Bunker is still proceeding and we by now know theyhave collapsed just 7 months after it was listed on the stock exchange. We have, therefore, decidedto look into the reasoning’s behind this collapse, and acquired knowledge that it was due to the fallof oil prices and the incorrect oil speculation rates. Which finally led to OW Bunker suffering agreat loss of capital due to speculation on different oil rates. This also led to OW BunkersSubsidiary Dynamic Oil Trading (DOT), granting too high credits for its stakeholders, which in turnled the company to collapse totally in November 2014.In conclusion, the Danish Business authority accused the auditors from Deloitte with not living upto the auditor practices and norms. According to the answers from the correspondents ISA 240 andthe cases (23/2010, 47/2004), we have had the possibility to construct predictions about whether theauditors will be held responsible or not. From the data we have collected, our opinion about thisissue is that the auditors in OW Bunker could not detect the fraud immediately. Because it was theExecutive Board who had the responsibility for the oil speculations. However, because we do nothave any of Deloitte’s data on this issue we cannot conclude whether or not they have revised theareas that bear risks

UddannelserCand.merc.aud Regnskab og Revision, (Kandidatuddannelse) Afsluttende afhandling
Antal sider99
VejledereLeif Christensen