MIND THE GAAP: The Auditor’s Dilemma


Audit firms are smack in the middle of the tension between U.S. and Chinese regulators with respect to allegations of accounting fraud at Chinese companies traded on U.S. exchanges.  At present, a Chinese affiliate of Deloitte is in the uncomfortable limelight for its work auditing Longtop Financial Technologies.

The affiliate resigned from the post earlier this year citing difficulty in verifying the company’s financial statements, but is facing continually mounting pressure relating to the audit relationship on both domestic and foreign fronts.  In sum:

In China, violation of secrecy laws can result in a prison term.  In the United States, Deloitte’s continued refusal to turn over the records could cause the firm to be held in contempt of court and face suspension or revocation of its auditing firm registration by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”).   The PCAOB has already identified quality control issues relating to Deloitte’s oversight of the firm’s foreign affiliates (PDF) and is seeking broad measures to prospectively improve the quality and credibility of Chinese audits by a proposed rule that would require an audit report to name the person “responsible for the engagement and…performance” of an audit – not just the name of the audit firm. 

The New York Times summarized the issue well:  “Deloitte’s Chinese affiliate finds itself between the proverbial rock and a hard place because the S.E.C. is unlikely to back away from a case in which American investors suffered losses based on what appears to be a rather brazen accounting fraud. And the Chinese government is unlikely to accede to allowing the auditors to respond to a subpoena that would create a precedent for other firms being compelled to disclose their work papers. What began as a fairly routine accounting fraud investigation threatens to become a much more contentious issue between the United States and China.”

OUR TAKE:  Doing business on an international stage poses interesting and often difficult challenges for audit firms seeking to comply with the laws of the countries in which they operate.  U.S. regulators are working hard to see that the work of audit firms with Chinese companies traded in the United States is not immune from U.S. law – an issue that we will continue to monitor.

If you would like to catch up on our series tracking developments related to allegations of accounting fraud at Chinese companies, please see our prior posts available at the following links:

The publications contained in this site do not constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be given with knowledge of the client's specific facts. By putting these publications on our website we do not intend to create a lawyer-client relationship with the user. Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. This information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results.

Search Tips:

You may use the wildcard symbol (*) as a root expander.  A search for "anti*" will find not only "anti", but also "anti-trust", "antique", etc.

Entering two terms together in a search field will behave as though an "OR" is being used.  For example, entering "Antique Motorcars" as a Client Name search will find results with either word in the Client Name.


AND and OR may be used in a search.  Note: they must be capitalized, e.g., "Project AND Finance." 

The + and - sign operators may be used.  The + sign indicates that the term immediately following is required, while the - sign indicates to omit results that contain that term. E.g., "+real -estate" says results must have "real" but not "estate".

To perform an exact phrase search, surround your search phrase with quotation marks.  For example, "Project Finance".

Searches are not case sensitive.

back to top