Spouse Employed by a Major Equipment Supplier
During a compliance audit of the Almaty regional health department for 2023–2024, the engagement leader discovers that the auditor responsible for procurement testing is married to the procurement manager of MedTechnoService LLP. That company won a 480 million tenge contract to supply diagnostic equipment to the department, and the auditor’s spouse received a bonus linked to the contract’s delivery. The auditor disclosed the relationship in writing two days after joining the team, saying she does not review that supplier’s file and has no influence over the spouse’s work. The engagement leader notes that the audit team is small, the procurement section is material (equipment is 41% of audited expenditure), and replacing the auditor would delay fieldwork by two weeks. The department’s deputy akim has also asked the team to finish before the regional budget session. The engagement leader must decide whether the auditor can remain on the team and what safeguards, if any, are sufficient.
1. Identify the independence threats and assess whether removing the auditor from the supplier file is a sufficient safeguard. Explain your conclusion.
Read the worked answer
The relationship creates at least a close-family self-interest threat and a familiarity threat. The fact that the auditor does not review the supplier file is not sufficient because the engagement is small and equipment is 41% of audited expenditure; the auditor could still influence scope, team discussions, or conclusions. The spouse’s bonus creates a direct financial interest in the contract’s acceptance.
A safeguard of removing the auditor only from the file might be adequate if: (a) the auditor has no access to procurement working papers; (b) another qualified auditor reviews the supplier file and signs the conclusion; (c) the auditor is excluded from team meetings on procurement; and (d) the engagement leader documents why the threat is at an acceptable level. Given the materiality, the small team, and the bonus link, the safer professional judgment is to remove the auditor from the engagement, not merely from the file. A two-week delay is not a valid reason to accept an unacceptable independence threat.
2. What should the engagement leader document and communicate, and to whom, before fieldwork continues?
Read the worked answer
Document the disclosure, the nature and timing of the relationship, the spouse’s role and bonus, the materiality of equipment, the safeguards considered, and the final decision with the engagement leader’s approval. Record who will independently review the supplier file and how the auditor will be excluded from procurement work.
Communicate the decision to the auditor and the audit team. If the auditor remains, obtain written confirmation that she will not access the supplier file and will report any change in circumstances. Notify the head of the audit unit or the independence focal point under the institution’s ethics rules. Disclose the spouse’s personal data only as widely as necessary. The documentation should show that the threat was evaluated before fieldwork, not after a challenge.