Nama : Rismawaty (NIM: 436689)

Kelas : Pengauditan Forensik (Maksi-39/AUD)

RINGKASAN MATERI DAN KULIAH KE-8

ATRIBUT DAN KODE ETIK AKUNTAN FORENSIK

SERTA STANDARD AUDIT INVESTIGATIF
 Howard R. Davia memberi lima nasihat kepada seorang auditor pemula dalam melakukan investigative
terhadap fraud, yaitu:
1. Hindari pengumpulan fakta dan data yang berlebihan secara premature. Identifikasi lebih dulu, siapa
pelaku (atau yang mempunyai potensi untuk menjadi pelaku)
2. Fraud auditor harus mampu membuktikan “niat pelaku melakukan kecurangan”. Banyak kasus
kecurangan kandas di sidang pengadilan karena akuntan forensik gagal membuktikan niat pelaku.
3. “Be creative, think like a perpetrator, do not be predictable”, seorang fraud auditor harus kreatif,
berpikir seperti pelaku fraud, jangan dapat ditebak.
4. Auditor harus tahu bahwa banyak kecurangan dilakukan dengan persekongkolan (kolusi, konspirasi).
Investigator harus memiliki indra atau intuisi yang tajam untuk merumuskan teori persekongkolan.
5. Dalam memilih proactive fraud detection strategy, si auditor harus mempertimbangkan apakah
kecurangan dilakukan di dalam pembukuan atau di luar pembukuan.
Dengan lima nasihat Davia itu, kita mempunyai gambaran mengenai atribut khas seorang akuntan
forensic, fraud auditor, dan investigator.
 Tiga sikap dan tindak-pikir yang selalu harus melekat pada diri seorang auditor, yakni independen,
objektif, dan skeptis. Ketiga sikap dan tindak piker juga tidak dapat dipisahkan dari pekerjaan akuntan
forensik.
 Kode etik pimpinan KPK memang bukan contoh kode etik akuntan forensik. Namun perumusannya
sangat relevan untuk mengatur perilaku akuntan forensik. Mempunyai dokumen mengenai standard an
kode etik adalah langkah awal yang baik. Namun, tanpa penegakan yang tegas dan konsisten,
kredibilitas profesi dipertanyakan.
 Standar Profesi Akuntan Publik (SPAP) tidak secara khusus mengatur audit investigative atau fraud
audit. Situasi sangat rawan karena para praktisi melakukan audit investigatif atau fraud audit tanpa
standar. K. H. Spencer dan Jennifer Pickett merumuskan beberapa standar untuk melakukan investigasi
terhadap fraud. Konteks yang mereka rujuk adalah investigasi atas fraud yang dilakukan pegawai di
perusahaan. Standar tersebut adalah:
1. Seluruh investigasi harus dilandasi praktik terbaik yang diakui.
2. Kumpulkan bukti-bukti dengan prinsip kehati-hatian sehingga bukti-bukti audit tadi dapat dterima di
pengadilan
3. Pastikan bahwa seluruh dokumentasi dalam keadaan aman, terlindungi, dan diindeks; dan jejak audit
tersedia.
4. Pastikan bahwa para investigator mengerti hak-hak asasi pegawai dan senantiasa menghormatinya.
5. Beban pembuktian ada pada yang “menduga” pegawainya melakukan kecurangan, dan pada
penuntut umum yang mendakwa pegawai tersebut, baik dalam kasus hukum administrative maupun
hukum pidana.
6. Cakup seluruh substansi investigasi dan “kuasai” seluruh target yang sangat kritis ditinjau dari segi
waktu.
7. Liput seluruh tahapan kunci dalam proses investigasi, termasuk perencanaan, pengumpulan bukti
dan barang bukti, wawancara, kontak dengan pihak ketiga, pengamanan mengenai hal-hal yang
bersifat rahasia, ikuti tata cara atau protocol, dokumentasi dan penyelenggaraan catatan, melibatkan
dan/atau melapor ke polisi, kewajiban hukum, dan persyaratan mengenai pelaporan.
FORENSIC ACCOUNTANT AS EXPERT WITNESS
 Lay witnesses in civil and criminal cases generally are restricted from giving legal testimony consisting
of opinions, conclusions, and characterizations, although they may estimate the speed of a moving
vehicle, approximate temperature and distances, identify common smells, and testify in matters of
physical description such as age, height, and weight.
 One conclusion was that scientific evidence needed to be relevant and reliable. The Court also mandated
a flexible approach in determining the admissibility of expert testimony. Four key factors to be
considered are:
1. The credentials and/or experience that indicate an expert
2. The testimony’s basis in fact
3. The testimony relevance and reliability
4. Other factors
In addition, the Court established five nonexhaustive factors to aid judges in assessing the reliability of
expert testimony:
1. Testing. Can the theory or technique be tested, or has it been tested?
2. Peer reviews. Has the theory or technique been subjected to peer review or publication which aids in
determining flaws in the method?
3. Error rates. Are there established standards to control the use of the technique? Is there a high rate of
error or potential rate of error in the chosen method?
4. Acceptability. Is the theory or technique generally accepted in the relevant technical community?
5. Time. Did the theory or technique exist before litigation began?
 Reilly provides these guidelines for forensic accountants serving as expert witnesses:
1. Know the relevant professional standards.
2. Apply the relevant professional standards.
3. Know the relevant professional literature.
4. Know the relevant professional organizations.
5. Use generally accepted analytical methods.
6. Use multiple analytical methods.
7. Synthesize the conclusions of the multiple analytical methods.
8. Disclose all significant analytical assumptions and variables.
9. Subject the analysis to peer review.
10. Test the analysis and the conclusion for reasonableness.
 According to Parfitt, attorneys should do six things to assist in making sure the expert (forensic
accountant) is “Daubert-proof”:
1. Examine the forensic accountant’s curriculum vitae (CV) for
general qualifications, such as research in a relevant field, number
of relevant publications, and publication bias.
2. Question the forensic accountant to ascertain whether there are
any misrepresentations, inaccuracies, or significant omissions in
the CV.
3. Examine positions the forensic accountant has taken in publications
to identify consistent, or inconsistent, opinions.
4. Review copies of the forensic accountant’s prior testimony on the
subject to determine if opinions have been stricken in other trials.
5. Educate the forensic accountant fully on forensic accounting
issues relevant to the case.
6. Prepare materials to support an argument to include your forensic
accountant’s testimony, including Rule 702 and Daubert case
 law, and relevant judicial opinions.
 When accountants and auditors are called by the prosecution, they generally testify about their
investigative findings. When they are called by the defense, they may testify about the quality of the
findings or the opinions expressed by the prosecution’s accounting expert, in order to create doubt in the
minds of jury members about the credibility or weight to give to the prosecution’s expert.
 To be considered an expert, it is helpful to have prior experience with litigation or criminal matters. This
qualification is primarily a result of the knowledge and skills that are gained during the testifying
experience.
 Experts must have the ability to simplify complex issues. It is helpful if they can communicate very
directly and simply, keeping in mind that they are talking to nonaccountants and that the expert’s role is
to clarify complex issues so that everyone can understand them. In view of this, some background or
experience in teaching often is helpful.
 Experts must have the ability to simplify complex issues. It is helpful if they can communicate very
directly and simply, keeping in mind that they are talking to nonaccountants and that the expert’s role is
to clarify complex issues so that everyone can understand them. In view of this, some background or
experience in teaching often is helpful. Contoh: Speak clearly and audibly, Use simple rather than
complex terms to describe findings and opinions.
 Documentary accounting evidence may be presented in a court of law in two forms: (1) primary,
including original, individual accounting documents obtained from the parties concerned or other
sources, and (2) secondary, including summaries and schedules based on the original documents. An
accountant produces these secondary documents based on an examination of the primary evidence.
The admissibility of such evidence is well established in the United States. In Hoyer v. United States,
the court held that in a prosecution for attempting to evade income taxes, summaries prepared from
documentary and oral evidence were admissible to show the defendant’s correct net income.
 Generally, experts play an ongoing part in the litigation team. In particular, their involvement may be at
various stages throughout the development of the case, most notably in: Case assessment, Identification
of documentation required to support the case, both additional and currently available, Evaluation of the
scope of work, Expert evidence in court.
 Pretestimony activities generally encompass preparing the report of the expert witness to a final stage.
Without stating that the list is allinclusive or appropriate in all circumstances, reports should include a
discussion of these financial aspects: Issues, Reliance on data to achieve conclusion, Assumptions made
in arriving at conclusion
 Judges and juries often base their assessments of expert witnesses at least in part on how the witnesses
look. Therefore, it is important that witnesses be well groomed and neatly dressed. In the case of an
accountant, a dark business suit is the expected image. This appearance may enhance the image to
psychological advantage. In the witness box, the witness should maintain a poised, alert appearance,
stand still, and be ready to take the oath. It is important to control the hands, avoid fidgeting, and
maintain eye contact with the questioner. As the judge will be taking notes, the witness should speak
slowly enough to ensure that the judge does not fall behind. The voice should be strong and directed to
the questioner. The witness should enunciate clearly.
 The purpose of direct examination is to enable counsel for the side the expert represents to draw out the
financial evidence to prove the case. Most likely, this examination will be only a reiteration of what has
been discussed previously with counsel outside of the courtroom. It is still very important, however, for
the expert to refresh her memory by reference to anything she may have read, written, or given in
evidence on the case beforehand.
 Cross-examination is truly the highlight of the adversarial court system; it is geared to allow counsel
either to clarify or to make points at the witness’s expense. As such, it is generally the most difficult part
 of the trial process for any witness. Anything unexpected can turn up that might refute or embarrass the
witness, whose credibility is constantly called into question.
In cross-examination, a good counsel will quickly discover the witness’s weak areas and employ any
possible techniques to achieve his or her goal. Thus, it is often useful to have an overall understanding of
some of the more common methods employed, which include: Myopic vision, Safety/good guy,
Contradiction, New information, Support opposing sides theory, Bias, Confrontation, Sounding board,
Fees, Terms of engagement, Discrediting the witness
 Larry Crumbley membuat pertimbangan berikut untuk akuntan forensik terkait kesaksiannya:
Use Visual Aids, Do Not Answer an Ambiguous Question, Maintain Your Composure, Be Patient,
Maintain a Careful Sense of Humor, Know Your Limitations, Do Not Become Argumentative or
Defensive, Do Not Forget Who Is Deciding the Case,
 Terdapat 10 poin yang perlu diingat oleh saksi ahli dalam menyiapkan dan memberikan bukti pada saat
percobaan, yaitu: siapkan materi secara lengkap, mengerti material secara mendalam, merencanakan
kesaksian, bersikap waspada, mendengar secara hati-hati, mempertimbangkan setiap jawaban dengan
hati-hati dan ambil jeda sebelum menjawab, bersikap jujur dan hindari bias, klarifikasi dengan kata-kata
sederhana, bersikap percaya diri, pertahankan harga diri dan integritas professional.