In Hindi there is a saying ‘Bali ka bakra’ – it is the goat which has to be sacrificed. There is no sacrificing of the lion or the elephant, but just a goat.

We saw it in the case of the Adag -Reliance communication telecom scam also. Everybody knew who was the beneficiary. He was on page 3 and Gautam Doshi was in jail for 130 days!

Now those who know how the CA system works, KNOW that there is a fee involved (just for curiosity see the Satyam audit fee figure and compare it to Infosys fees!). This fee goes to the partners who sign the audited report – but the audit is done by the employee (who gets a salary). To prosecute the managers is of course right, they need to be punished…but what about the partners? the firm itself? the ‘Brand’ umbrella?

When I was a student I did hear that the ‘Law is an ass’ – well what more can I say?

Sebi’s demand for another regulator will get louder – and some of the screaming could come from the members in service itself 🙂 It is time a few lions and tigers are prosecuted too.

Read on…

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/info-tech/article2692220.ece

The managers who have been debarred are Mr C. Ravindranath and Mr P. Sivaprasad — both employees of Lovelock & Lewes, an affiliate of Pricewaterhouse India.

Related Articles:

Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.

  1. The headline should have said ’employees of auditors of Satyam debarred by ICAI’. Then it would have invoked the right response. With the current headline, people will simply say ‘Well they deserved it’. With the modified headline, they would have questioned exactly what’s on your mind…i.e. ’employees? only? what about the auditing company, owners?’

  2. Kid. Not even goat, ashwam naiva, gajam naiva, vyaghram naiva cha naiva cha. Ajaputram balim dadhyaam..
    Even the Gods want only a kid.

  3. If you had bothered to research this you would have found that the partners involved are awaiting trial in the Indian courts and until that trial is done, ICAI cannot proceed against them. A far better question for you to ask would be why the courts are taking so long to consider this case: 3 years?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>