Someone said :
you paying for it then ? Easy when its somebody elses money ... isnt it
If everybidy us saying the accounts ate fine and just procedures werent followed a big expensive forensic audit is not appropriate.
And when will they ever learn transparency is the only way to go.
If "everybody" are the people being investigated, then it is not proof: it is a defense.
If procedures were not followed, then it is not possible to know that the "accounts are fine"...
Procedures are there to ensure that money is not pocketed whilst leaving the impression that accounts are fine. Any subtle enough fraud does not show immediately in the accounts!
If 100-40=60, it does tell us that the account is balanced.
It says nothing about who used the 50, if they were really allowed ot, if it was used for what it says on the invoice, if the invoice was genuine.
Sometimes calling the company who invoice a service allows to find that that they did not exist. Or looking closer at their own books allows to see that they did not record the transaction for the same amount.
Accounts are only a book-keeping exercise, aimed at balancing things out. Thinks can be balanced, and still be dodgy!
Different kinds of audits exist, some more forensic than others.
Some audits will say "you said you would record such transaction on such a line and provide a paper saying 'bill'; you have, good man". =rubber stamping.
More advanced audits might ask questions about the number of signatures on the checks, the approvals for such spendings, the need for such spendings, the conflicts of interests between the spender and the provider, the process that was followed to ensure best value for the organisation, etc. =investigation