The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 gave the PCAOB the authority to investigate and impose disciplinary sanctions against any individual or any registered public accounting firms that violate any of the accounting standard. These standard include those set by the PCAOB and the Security and Exchange Commission, professional standards that governs brokers, dealers and auditors of public companies. PCAOB Rules 5000-5113 outlines the PCAOB’s authority to conduct inquiries and investigations. PCAOB will often conclude its inspection with the issuance a final inspection report.
Inquiries and investigations are conducted when a violation is suspected during an inspection or information from whistleblowers or informants. When the need for an investigation …show more content…
This allows for greater efficiency in the due process and resolution of cases. Parties in any case are given procedural rights plus many opportunities to appeal a verdict. This avoids abuse in the sight of guilty parties. The Board has forty-nine rules of text pertaining to the hearing process that fill up forty-four pages. Many of these rules are extensively procedural. Only lawyers involved in the proceedings are interested in these forty-nine rules. For instance, Rule 5408 restricts page lengths of briefs. Rule 5463 limits the time for oral argument before the Board. On the other hand, other rules outline fundamental rights of parties involved in proceedings which practitioners and students are interested in. One initial complaint against the abuse by the board was that the quasi-judicial officer who presided over cases. The officer was an employee who worked for the board. Therefore many felt the officer decided cases in favor of the board. The first requirement of anyone presiding over a case is an open, impartial mind. For this requirement to be met, the Federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA) insists that this role be executed by an “administrative law judge” who can be an employee of the board but who is also separate from the enforcement and policy branches of the board. This employee who decides on the cases is a “hearing officer” who “may not be responsible to or subject to the supervision or direction of an employee or agent engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions for the Board” (Rule 5200). Thus, the hearing officer will not be intimidated by the prospect of retaliation by the board in case he or she rules against them. Any employee of the Board who is part of the Board’s investigation or prosecution branches may not partake or give advice on the decision of a hearing officer except when called as a witness or counsel. So the PCAOB Rule 5403(b) forbids ex parte
Inquiries and investigations are conducted when a violation is suspected during an inspection or information from whistleblowers or informants. When the need for an investigation …show more content…
This allows for greater efficiency in the due process and resolution of cases. Parties in any case are given procedural rights plus many opportunities to appeal a verdict. This avoids abuse in the sight of guilty parties. The Board has forty-nine rules of text pertaining to the hearing process that fill up forty-four pages. Many of these rules are extensively procedural. Only lawyers involved in the proceedings are interested in these forty-nine rules. For instance, Rule 5408 restricts page lengths of briefs. Rule 5463 limits the time for oral argument before the Board. On the other hand, other rules outline fundamental rights of parties involved in proceedings which practitioners and students are interested in. One initial complaint against the abuse by the board was that the quasi-judicial officer who presided over cases. The officer was an employee who worked for the board. Therefore many felt the officer decided cases in favor of the board. The first requirement of anyone presiding over a case is an open, impartial mind. For this requirement to be met, the Federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA) insists that this role be executed by an “administrative law judge” who can be an employee of the board but who is also separate from the enforcement and policy branches of the board. This employee who decides on the cases is a “hearing officer” who “may not be responsible to or subject to the supervision or direction of an employee or agent engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions for the Board” (Rule 5200). Thus, the hearing officer will not be intimidated by the prospect of retaliation by the board in case he or she rules against them. Any employee of the Board who is part of the Board’s investigation or prosecution branches may not partake or give advice on the decision of a hearing officer except when called as a witness or counsel. So the PCAOB Rule 5403(b) forbids ex parte