by Ganesh Sahathevan
In July 20201 The Government Of Malaysia demanded USD 5.6 Billion from international audit firm KPMG for losses arising out of KPMG's negligence in the conduct of its 1MDB audit.
By September 2021 the Malaysian Government accepted just USD 80 Million in settlement of claims against KPMG.
While it is true that litigation can be a long drawn out, expensive, affair, it is hard to see what cost-benefit calculations the Malaysian government relied on to determine that a discount of almost 99% of the amount claimed was reasonable.
The settlement is suspicious and raises US FCPA and UK Bribery Act issues, given the way in which KPMG's business is organised, and given the extent of the 1MDB affair.
TO BE READ WTH
Saturday, July 10, 2021
Will former FM Lim Guan Eng's Special Officer Dato Ooi Kok Seng be among KPMG partners who are being sued more than USD 5.6 Billion for 1MDB losses
by Ganesh Sahathevan
Malaysia's government and state fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) are seeking more than US$5.6 billion in damages from KPMG partners for alleged breaches and negligence linked to a corruption scandal at the fund, court documents seen by Reuters showed.
Audit firm KPMG on Friday (Jul 9) denied the allegations and pledged to "vigorously" contest the suit filed against 44 current and former partners and linked to its audit of 1MDB's financial statements between 2010 to 2012.
It would be interesting to see if former Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng' Special Officer, KPMG partner Dato Ooi Kok Seng, is among those sued, and what his defence might be.
TO BE READ WITH
hursday, March 14, 2019
Malaysia's Minister For Finance appoints KPMG partner as "Special Officer",despite KPMG's contribution to 1MDB's losses
by Ganesh Sahathevan
KPMG's _proudly boast on their website:
Special officer to the finance minister, Dato’ Ooi Kok Seng, who was also present, had mentioned that the government had not yet received the funds from a one-off special dividend from Petroliam Nasional Bhd (Petronas) of RM30 billion which will be used for tax refunds announced during Budget 2019. “At the moment the funds are not in as it is only a few days past the new year. However, [the public] should not worry as the finance minister has given the assurance that full refunds will be made through the special dividend,” he said.
Dato’ Ooi Kok Seng is KPMG Head (North).He seems to have won the favour of the Penang Government and the DAP, despite KPMG's 1MDB history.This excerpt from the DAP website is indicative of their relationship:
The Penang state government has chosen the internationally renowned accounting firm, KPMG and its senior partner Chartered Accountant Ooi Kok Seng, for the verification exercise and to formulate the template and presented to the public. As an independent audit firm, KPMG is required to uphold the highest standards of professional standards ensuring that it complies with the principles of objectivity, independence and no conflict of interest before undertaking any task.
KPMG's contribution to 1MDB's losses has been well documented by this writer and by Sawarak Report (see stories below).
This conflict adds to that concerning PwC, Goldman Sach's auditor for some 37 years, who have nevertheless been appointed to oversee 1MDB.
END
 | ||
 Kok Seng is the Partner-in-Charge for KPMG Northern Region. He has extensive audit, accounting and consulting experience both in Malaysia and Washington, D.C., USA. His experience is not limited to audit assignments but also covers the various corporate exercises which include corporate advisory on initial public offerings, cross border acquisitions, special issues and share valuation.He currently sits in the Penang State Shared Services and Outsourcing and Creative Multimedia Content Council. | ||
| (see http://aamc2015.usm.my/index.php/2-uncategorised |
KPMG's _proudly boast on their website:
Special officer to the finance minister, Dato’ Ooi Kok Seng, who was also present, had mentioned that the government had not yet received the funds from a one-off special dividend from Petroliam Nasional Bhd (Petronas) of RM30 billion which will be used for tax refunds announced during Budget 2019. “At the moment the funds are not in as it is only a few days past the new year. However, [the public] should not worry as the finance minister has given the assurance that full refunds will be made through the special dividend,” he said.
Dato’ Ooi Kok Seng is KPMG Head (North).He seems to have won the favour of the Penang Government and the DAP, despite KPMG's 1MDB history.This excerpt from the DAP website is indicative of their relationship:
The Penang state government has chosen the internationally renowned accounting firm, KPMG and its senior partner Chartered Accountant Ooi Kok Seng, for the verification exercise and to formulate the template and presented to the public. As an independent audit firm, KPMG is required to uphold the highest standards of professional standards ensuring that it complies with the principles of objectivity, independence and no conflict of interest before undertaking any task.
KPMG's contribution to 1MDB's losses has been well documented by this writer and by Sawarak Report (see stories below).
This conflict adds to that concerning PwC, Goldman Sach's auditor for some 37 years, who have nevertheless been appointed to oversee 1MDB.
END
Don't Ask Us! - KPMG Global's Astonishing Response on 1MDB
1MDB is not anything to do with us – Global Chief of KPMG, John Veihmeyer
For weeks the mantra of the chairman of 1MDB’s governing Advisory Board (Malaysia’s Prime Minister) has been that the management of the fund has been ‘cleared’, because the accounts were ‘forensically’ audited by international accountancy firms of global standing.
The firms who have given 1MDB clean bills of health have been the Malaysia branches of the accountancy giants Deloitte and KPMG.
Malaysia’s top team at KPMG – no accountability to HQ?
However, last week Sarawak Report demonstrated evidence pointing to a series of sharp practices on the part of KPMG during the audit process for the year ending March 2010.
These enabled 1MDB to conceal the loss of USD$700 million, which was the sum siphoned out of its joint venture with the little known oil company PetroSaudi.
Following this expose, the Sydney-based Malaysian investigative financial journalist, Ganesh Sahathevan, directly challenged the Global Chairman of the company, John Veihmeyer, to give his response to the allegations.
Sahathevan asked whether KPMG Global had been aware of any of the transactions relating to 1MDB outlined in the expose? He added that:
“much of what has been reported was in the public domain since at least 2014, and hence there is also the question of why the Global Board took no action despite that fact?”
KPMG’s international image – a massive global firm
The rapid response Sahathevan received from KPMG merits reading in full, because it puts paid to any assumptions that a local branch of this ‘global network’ of accountancy firms can be relied upon to maintain any sort of acceptable standard laid down by a central authority.
The General Counsel (top lawyer) for Mr Veihmeyer states that the corporate headquarters has no involvement in the matter, because the KPMG network represents nothing more than a ‘Swiss Cooperative’ of happy Helvetic brand sharers.
In short, he explains, no one at HQ is responsible for what their fellow franchise holders get up to. They are just there to help and advise when required.
Dear Mr SahathevanI refer to your email below addressed to Mr John Veihmeyer, Global Chairman, KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International).I am the General Counsel of KPMG International and am responding on behalf of Mr Veihmeyer.KPMG International is a Swiss Cooperative. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm vis-à-vis third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to bind or obligate any member firm.KPMG International does not have any relationship with, or connection to, 1MDB”.Yours faithfullyTom Wethered
Malaysians and others, who had assumed that accreditation by KPMG represented some form of guarantee of high standards; quality control; centralised monitoring and disciplinary process to ensure high standards of accountancy practice must therefore stand disappointed.
According to KPMG’s top legal eagle, theirs is a form of franchise that has its cake and eats it at the same time.
Name bearers get to carry the brand, but without any form of accountability whatsoever:
“nor does KPMG International have any such authority to bind or obligate any member firm” [Tom Wethered]
Franchise without accountability?
If a Malaysian were to find dog meat in his McDonald’s burger in KL, he would expect to receive some response from the company HQ from under its golden arches in California – and doubtless he would.
By contrast, if KPMG Malaysia assists in the cover-up of a billion dollar heist of public money, it turns out that their global HQ in Amsterdam merely refers you to the cantons of Switzerland and their company’s new corporate structure, which is accountability free.
Having their cake and eating it
Mr Wethered’s response that “KPMG International does not have any relationship with, or connection to, 1MDB” represents a stark contrast, however, with the firm’s own publicity material.
The KPMG website and numerous articles make reference instead to the guarantee of quality that their brand lends to its affiliates across the world.
KPMG’s own website, under the banner line “Acting With Integrity”, declares:
“KPMG is a global network of professional firms providing Audit, Tax and Advisory services. We have more than 155,000 outstanding professionals working together to deliver value in 155 countries worldwide.”
On the other hand, scrutiny of this KPMG website soon makes plain that behind the fine words and sentiments there is indeed what appears to be a significant dearth of actual governance in this corporate structure:
ABOVE ALL, WE ACT WITH INTEGRITY
We are constantly striving to uphold the highest professional standards, provide sound advice and rigorously maintain our independence….
The KPMG Global website concedes that its Head Officers provide policies, even regulations. But, there is no mention of enforcement.
The Global Board is the principal governance and oversight body. The key responsibilities of the Board include approving long-term strategy, protecting and enhancing the KPMG brand, and approving policies and regulations
There is no single line of accountability within the organisation.
Leadership
Internationally, the affairs of KPMG are the responsibility of several bodies.
Aspirations, but can they be enforced?
The controls that would lead the third party readers of its audit reports to feel comforted that quality control is enforced, appear to be missing, as indicated by the letter sent by KMPG’s top counsel.
Although there is a deluge of information about the values and quality that this network of affiliated firms is “striving to achieve”, there seems to be a lack of clear accountability within the structure of the organisation.
Without accountability and enforcement structures the high values and claims of integrity that pack out KPMG’s corporate messaging are surely effectively meaningless?
What better example than this latest abdication of responsibility over the scandal of 1MDB?
KPMG’s Positive PR
The legal counsel of KPMG seems therefore to be entirely correct in his statement that the global headquarters can wash its hands entirely of this little fracas over in Malaysia.
Star Interview with former Global Head Michael Andrew presented a very different state of affairs.
Yet, as Mr Sahathevan and others suggest, this is not the public face of the company.
Certainly, the ‘Swiss Cooperative’s’ corporate PR does not accurately represent this state of affairs and basic lack of governance.
Take for example the recent ‘Up Close And Personal’ article by Malaysia’s Star Newspaper about the role of the recently retired Global Chairman of KPMG.
In his interview Mr Andrew told the Star that clients in KL had the right to expect the same level of service as in Europe.
He also said that the company upheld its “duty to the broader community”:
KPMG’s brand, Andrew says, is all about being independent and objective because the firm and its employees has a public interest of responsibility to the broader community.“We have to ensure that we uphold the governance standards in every country for our multi-national clients. They expect the same standards in Kuala Lumpur as they do in Johannesburg, Frankfurt or New York,” he says.He adds that corporate governance defines the KPMG brand. “If we don’t meet the governance standards, then people won’t have confidence in our business. Integrity is at the heart of everything we do.“This is ensuring that we understand that our duty is to the broader community than just to any particular client or particular transaction. Because if we do some work, which turns out to be incorrect, it’ll affect our global brand,” he says.Every three months, KPMG employees are required to sign a declaration to maintain their independence around their audit clients. [The Star Online 10th Aug 2013]
However, despite that commitment to the broader community, in the case of 1MDB the public was never informed about the siphoning of $700 million in public funds out of the fund, thanks to KPMG Malaysia’s accountancy practices.
And now it turns out that KPMG Global regards itself as having no responsibility at all in the matter.
Were it to be more widely recognised that KPMG Global exerts so little quality control over its branches, the reputation on which this ‘cooperative’ relies might very well lose a lot of its lustre.
