There is plenty more on the Indo. Important to note that a policy to ‘hand’ the INBS to Fingers and to remove the INBS from the stewardship of its own board was supervised by an unholy cabaal of KPMG and Pat Neary for many years. No qualifications as to these governance ‘arrangements’ were entered in any annual accounts.
The liquidation of IBRC should be handed over forthwith to accountants who did not lose a bank on their watch, that would be Grant Thornton or Mazars or B. D. O. in Ireland.
Still won’t guarantee they will chase KPMG properly but a partner in KPMG is utterly conflicted in this regard. I agree with Mr Cooneys use of the word preposterous to describe the situation.
I’d be interested to hear whether the ex compliance officer of the society who notified the board and central bank ( separately) of the shenanigans in there will be testifying at any stage…mentioned 4 years back in this thread…here
The Irish Times in their long preamble to this case late last week observed the following (quoted below) of KPMG. Not once did KPMG ever pretend that their ‘audits’ were not a true and fair picture but they cofined their more trenchant and indeed accurate ‘observations’ to their consultancy gigs on the side that they got paid the extras for.
And were I a member of the board I would have found myself completely in agreement with the proposition that KMPG and Pat Neary and John Hurley only regarded the board of INBS as some sort of inconvenience that had to be suffered for the cause. After all Seanies loans had to be stashed somewhere and those back to back arrangements like the €7bn permo scam had to be organised for the greater good.
Incidentally…The following would be funny…if it were indeed true in any real sense. OK I do concede that KMPG were paid to ‘audit’ the Permo in 2002 but as for the rest of it.
There is no evidence that such an audit as the one ‘described’ in detail below was ever carried out by KMPG on the INBS.
. Our audit work has been undertaken so that we might state to the company’s members those matters we
are required to state to them in an auditors’ report and for no other purpose. To the fullest extent permitted by law, we
do not accept or assume responsibility to anyone other than the company and the company’s members as a body, for
our audit work, for this report, or for the opinions we have formed.
Respective responsibilities of directors and auditors
The directors are responsible for preparing the Annual Report. As described on page 34, this includes responsibility
for preparing the financial statements in accordance with applicable Irish law and accounting standards.** Our
responsibilities, as independent auditors, are established in Ireland by statute, the Auditing Practices Board, the
Listing Rules of the Irish Stock Exchange, and by our profession’s ethical guidance.** We report to you our opinion as to whether the financial statements give a true and fair view and are properly prepared
in accordance with the Companies Acts. As also required by the Acts,** we state whether we have obtained all the
information and explanations we require for our audit**, whether the company’s balance sheet is in agreement with the
books of account and report to you our opinion as to whether:
the company has kept proper books of account;
the directors’ report is consistent with the financial statements;
at the balance sheet date a financial situation existed that may require the company to hold an extraordinary
general meeting, on the grounds that the net assets of the company, as shown in the financial statements, are
less than half of its share capital.
We also report to you if, in our opinion, information specified by law regarding directors’ remuneration and
transactions with the group is not disclosed.
We review whether the statement on page 28 reflects the company’s compliance with the seven provisions of the
Combined Code specified for our review by the Listing Rules, and we report if it does not. We are not required to
consider whether the board’s statements on internal control cover all risks and controls, or form an opinion on the
effectiveness of the group’s corporate governance procedures or its risk and control procedures. We read the other information contained in the Annual Report, including the corporate governance statement, and
consider whether it is consistent with the audited financial statements. We consider the implications for our report if
we become aware of any apparent misstatements or material inconsistencies with the financial statements.
Basis of audit opinion
We conducted our audit in accordance with Auditing Standards issued by the Auditing Practices Board. An audit
includes examination, on a test basis, of evidence relevant to the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.
It also includes an assessment of the significant estimates and judgements made by the directors in the preparation of
the financial statements, and of whether the accounting policies are appropriate to the group’s circumstances,
consistently applied and adequately disclosed. We planned and performed our audit so as to obtain all the information and explanations which we considered
necessary in order to provide us with sufficient evidence to give reasonable assurance that the financial statements are
free from material misstatement, whether caused by fraud or other irregularity or error. In forming our opinion we also
evaluated the overall adequacy of the presentation of information in the financial statements.
In our opinion, the financial statements give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the group and the company
as at 31 December 2002 and of the profit of the group for the year then ended and have been properly prepared in
accordance with the Companies Acts, 1963 to 2001 and all Regulations to be construed as one with those Acts.
We have obtained all the information and explanations we considered necessary for the purposes of our audit. In our
opinion, proper books of account have been kept by the company. The balance sheet of the company is in agreement
with the books of account.
In our opinion, the information given in the directors’ report on pages 24 to 25 is consistent with the financial
The net assets of the company, as stated in the balance sheet on page 47, are more than half of the amount of its
called up share capital and, in our opinion, on that basis there did not exist at 31 December 2002 a financial situation
which, under Section 40(1) of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1983, would require the convening of an
extraordinary general meeting of the company.
5 George’s Dock
20 March 2003