This is the analogical expression of the duty to distrus

[mahbubamim077]

It is a mistake to view this phase and procedure as detective work in crime novels. That is not the idea (although it may be, if there are indications of irregularities). The auditor, in principle, is only assessing the regularity of assets. Therefore, the economic and financial audit procedure should be understood as a moment to certify the regularity of the management process.

And what should be expected as a result is the confirmation turkey bulk sms packages that everything is in order. The purpose should not be to discover what was done wrong, but to certify that everything was done correctly. And there is relevance in this. In fact, audits of publicly-held companies, carried out annually, do not fulfill the function of investigating fraud, but of certifying good economic and financial conduct. Of course, during this work, auditors can – and usually do – indicate nonconformities of various kinds, including illicit acts. But the auditing work does not start from the perception of nonconformity; it starts from the need to assess and certify regularity and, thus, provide security to the entire process.

Whoever manages the joint assets is responsible for doing so properly; if both do so, both are responsible for their actions; the audit will not look at this or that, but at all actions. This is a situation analogous to the accounting audit of a professional company with collective management. We are not looking for so-and-so; the actions of all partners are examined, even if there are twelve of them. We verify and attest to their adequacy. It does not start from the presentation of evidence of wrongdoing.