New companies ordinance offence in relation to auditors - new
circular issued by the companies registry and technical bulletin
issued by the HKICPA
4 March 2014
The new law
The new Companies Ordinance (Cap 622) (the "new CO")
came into force on 3 March 2014. Amongst other things, it
introduced a new offence in relation to certain omissions in
The Companies Registry has recently published a circular to set
out the general principles that apply in determining whether an
offence relating to the contents of an auditor's report should
be prosecuted under section 408 of the new CO or section 16 of the
Companies (Revision of Financial Statements and Reports) Regulation
(Cap 622F) (the "Circular"). The Hong Kong Institute of
Certified Public Accountants also issued a Technical Bulletin on
section 408 of the new CO on 24 February 2014 (the "Technical
Key points from the Circular and the Technical Bulletin:
Section 407 of the new CO provides that if a "person"
is of the opinion that the financial statements of a company are
not in agreement with the accounting records in any material
respect, or if the auditor has failed to obtain all the information
or explanations that are necessary and material for the purpose of
the audit, the auditor must state that fact in the auditor's
report ("the Specified Statements").
Section 408 provides that the auditor commits an offence if the
"person" knowingly or recklessly
causes any of the Specified Statements to be omitted from an
A "person" who commits an offence under section 408
is liable to a fine not exceeding HK$150,000.
Under these provisions, a "person" includes (i) where
an auditor is a natural person, then him/herself and his/her
employee; (ii) where an auditor is a firm, its partners, employees
and agents who can be appointed as auditor; and (iii) if the
auditor is a body corporate, then every officer, member, employee
and agent who can be appointed as auditor. The Circular makes clear
that this definition is not intended to apply to persons who are
merely potentially eligible for appointment as auditor if he/she
applied for the relevant professional qualifications or
When considering whether to prosecute, the prosecutor must
consider: (i) whether the evidence sufficient to justify
instituting or continuing proceedings (whether the evidence
demonstrates a reasonable prospect of conviction); and (ii) does
the public interest require a prosecution to be pursued?
The requisite mental element for commission of an offence is
"knowingly" or "recklessly". The offence does
not criminalise negligence.
For the mental element of "knowingly", knowledge will
be inferred from the evidence, but will not be imputed on the basis
of the person's professional qualification.
For the mental element of "recklessly", the test for
"recklessness" is set out in the case of Sin Kam Wah v
HKSAR  2 HKLRD 375 at 391 C-E. In the context of section 408,
a person would be culpable if, at the time of commission of the
offence, he was aware that an action or failure to act carried
risks that he knew were not reasonable ones to take, and that he
went ahead despite knowing that.
To secure a conviction of the offence all the elements of the
offence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
There is no exhaustive list of the considerations to be
addressed when making an assessment with regard to public interest,
but they include the seriousness of the offence, the level of the
suspect's culpability and the attitude, age, nature or physical
or psychological condition of the suspect.
In short, it appears that the proposition raised during the
consultation and legislative stages of the new CO that prosecutions
would not be brought lightly will continue to hold true for the
time being. Further, the offence in question involves the
possibility of a fine, rather than any potential prison sentence.
Nonetheless, the potential reputational ramifications of any
prosecution on an accountant, as well as the risks of follow-up
professional disciplinary proceedings, cannot be
With European governments needing to increase their tax collection, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and development and other organisations are looking to standardise the reporting and filing of annual financial statements for companies across the world.
As your business reflects on both the changing shape of the Solvency II timetable and the eventual move to a new IFRS standard for insurance contracts, how can a durable platform for regulatory and financial reporting in the future?
Many funds and similar entities will be exempted from consolidating controlled investees under amendments to IFRS 10 ‘Consolidated financial statements’.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).