Forensic Financial Auditor

[krakatoa]

Does anyone know of a competent person (accountant) who might specialise in carrying out thorough financial audits.

Ability to speak good English is a pre-requisite.

The purpose of the audit is to do a "walk in surprise audit" to establish proof of financial malfeasance.

The outcome will determine whether "the person" is asked to resign, tender their resignation, be fired and or possibly being prosecuted.

Any advice will be appreciated.

[doggie888888]

Any of the Big 4 in BKK will be abe to do it. PWC, Deloitte, KPMG or Ernst&Young.

[gotlost]

Does anyone know of a competent person (accountant) who might specialise in carrying out thorough financial audits.

Ability to speak good English is a pre-requisite.

The purpose of the audit is to do a "walk in surprise audit" to establish proof of financial malfeasance.

The outcome will determine whether "the person" is asked to resign, tender their resignation, be fired and or possibly being prosecuted.

Any advice will be appreciated.

By the sound of things it may be a good idea to 1. take a deep breath and think. 2. get a lawyer and get advice 3. Then get an auditor. Hey is it any one on this form? PS you could use the search function top left hand corner for info.

[john b good]

I can only assume that since the OP posted in the Chiang Mai forum he is looking for someone in Chiang Mai.

A quick Google of the "big four" doesn't show any as having an office in Chiang Mai.

They may have of course have affiliates in Chiang Mai.

[Bill97]

Given the outcomes described, you have already decided that "the person" is guilty. But you want someone else to provide the proof of what you have already decided is true, and to help you decide whether to cut a finger off ("the person" resigns) or go for the head (prosecution). Not many competent people would accept an audit job where the result has been predetermined and even fewer are interested in playing the role of axe man but you may get lucky and find someone to do your job for you.

You may consider an option that would really benefit you like getting the person to repay any funds that they have taken, if they have taken any but probably the best thing to do is fire them and get on with your business unless you are a cat that just has to play with the mouse.

[krakatoa]

Given the outcomes described, you have already decided that "the person" is guilty. But you want someone else to provide the proof of what you have already decided is true, and to help you decide whether to cut a finger off ("the person" resigns) or go for the head (prosecution). Not many competent people would accept an audit job where the result has been predetermined and even fewer are interested in playing the role of axe man but you may get lucky and find someone to do your job for you.

You may consider an option that would really benefit you like getting the person to repay any funds that they have taken, if they have taken any but probably the best thing to do is fire them and get on with your business unless you are a cat that just has to play with the mouse.

Whether the words "you have already decided that "the person" is guilty" are really appropriate or not is not what this is about. But it might be said that we are pretty certain that 'this / these person (s)' have something to answer for is a given.

And of course we would not tell a prospective auditor anything other that we want a snap audit because of some thoughts that things are not as they should be. We wouldn't be getting into a situation where any accusations are made either to the auditors (or the persons under suspicion) until facts are known one way or the other. To make an accusation that cannot be made to 'stick' would leave oneself open to claims of slander etc.

But in reality it can fairly safely be said that many condominium management persons (not just the one I am interested in) are bent, and indeed several have been fired in Chiang Mai in the last few years.

The issue of having them pay money back is not really one that is on the table as an option.

It's not a case of you have been a bad boy (or girl as the case may be) pay us back and we will forget all about it.

Once a person has gone rotten they will always be rotten "if they can get away with it, as by then it has become second nature" (if it wasn't all along)

[Bill97]

Given the outcomes described, you have already decided that "the person" is guilty. But you want someone else to provide the proof of what you have already decided is true, and to help you decide whether to cut a finger off ("the person" resigns) or go for the head (prosecution). Not many competent people would accept an audit job where the result has been predetermined and even fewer are interested in playing the role of axe man but you may get lucky and find someone to do your job for you.

You may consider an option that would really benefit you like getting the person to repay any funds that they have taken, if they have taken any but probably the best thing to do is fire them and get on with your business unless you are a cat that just has to play with the mouse.

Whether the words "you have already decided that "the person" is guilty" are really appropriate or not is not what this is about. But it might be said that we are pretty certain that 'this / these person (s)' have something to answer for is a given.

And of course we would not tell a prospective auditor anything other that we want a snap audit because of some thoughts that things are not as they should be. We wouldn't be getting into a situation where any accusations are made either to the auditors (or the persons under suspicion) until facts are known one way or the other. To make an accusation that cannot be made to 'stick' would leave oneself open to claims of slander etc.

But in reality it can fairly safely be said that many condominium management persons (not just the one I am interested in) are bent, and indeed several have been fired in Chiang Mai in the last few years.

The issue of having them pay money back is not really one that is on the table as an option.

It's not a case of you have been a bad boy (or girl as the case may be) pay us back and we will forget all about it.

Once a person has gone rotten they will always be rotten "if they can get away with it, as by then it has become second nature" (if it wasn't all along)

So it is not your employee but a condominium management person? For a building that you own a unit in?

[krakatoa]

Given the outcomes described, you have already decided that "the person" is guilty. But you want someone else to provide the proof of what you have already decided is true, and to help you decide whether to cut a finger off ("the person" resigns) or go for the head (prosecution). Not many competent people would accept an audit job where the result has been predetermined and even fewer are interested in playing the role of axe man but you may get lucky and find someone to do your job for you.

You may consider an option that would really benefit you like getting the person to repay any funds that they have taken, if they have taken any but probably the best thing to do is fire them and get on with your business unless you are a cat that just has to play with the mouse.

Whether the words "you have already decided that "the person" is guilty" are really appropriate or not is not what this is about. But it might be said that we are pretty certain that 'this / these person (s)' have something to answer for is a given.

And of course we would not tell a prospective auditor anything other that we want a snap audit because of some thoughts that things are not as they should be. We wouldn't be getting into a situation where any accusations are made either to the auditors (or the persons under suspicion) until facts are known one way or the other. To make an accusation that cannot be made to 'stick' would leave oneself open to claims of slander etc.

But in reality it can fairly safely be said that many condominium management persons (not just the one I am interested in) are bent, and indeed several have been fired in Chiang Mai in the last few years.

The issue of having them pay money back is not really one that is on the table as an option.

It's not a case of you have been a bad boy (or girl as the case may be) pay us back and we will forget all about it.

Once a person has gone rotten they will always be rotten "if they can get away with it, as by then it has become second nature" (if it wasn't all along)

So it is not your employee but a condominium management person? For a building that you own a unit in?

"the person" is not an employess of mine "as such", BUT, he is an employee of the combined joint owners.

So why can he be described as an employee? BECAUSE, he receives compensation, i.e. a salary paid from the co-owners body corp monthly fees.

And in accordance with the Condominium Act of 2008 he can be dismissed for a variety of stated reasons.

Similarly the day to day manager can also be dismissed for a variety of reasons.

If they are dismissed without reason (good reason) they would be entitled to compensation based upon their current salary and the number of years they have been employed.

Edited October 28, 2009 by krakatoa

[Gonzo the Face]

I see nothing illegal, immoral or unethical in what the OP is trying to do.

I trust that this is a decision made by more members of the owners association than just yourself, for in that case it would seem to be an individual and personal vendetta, likely to prove uneventful.

[krakatoa]

I see nothing illegal, immoral or unethical in what the OP is trying to do.

I trust that this is a decision made by more members of the owners association than just yourself, for in that case it would seem to be an individual and personal vendetta, likely to prove uneventful.

I can assure you (and anyone else who is interested for that matter) that it is not just a one man band.

We would have a majority (of co-owners) if push comes to shove but it would be nice if we have some further indisputable evidence to add to what we already have.

Nothing like dotting the i's and crossing the t's so to speak

[Bill97]

I see nothing illegal, immoral or unethical in what the OP is trying to do.

I trust that this is a decision made by more members of the owners association than just yourself, for in that case it would seem to be an individual and personal vendetta, likely to prove uneventful.

I agree Gonzo.

The audit/action needs the agreement and support of the owners association or what the OP calls the "combined joint owners" or "the co-owners body corp".

A local auditor should be able to do it at a reasonable cost and the very high cost of using one of the big four auditors from BKK is not necessary. Someone in the owners association may know a good local auditor. If not the OP might try contacting the CMU Accounting Department in the Faculty of Business Administration, they have teachers there who do accounting and audit work in firms not connected to the University.

Edited October 28, 2009 by Bill97