Unravelling the minefield of audit transgressions and sanctions

Abstract

Background: Audit failures undermine public trust and investor confidence. The Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors (IRBA) is tasked with ensuring that regulatory audits comply with International Standards on Auditing (ISAs) and helping prevent failures by issuing sanctions for transgressions. In contrast, auditors tend to make similar mistakes repeatedly, indicating a research gap regarding the types of transgressions that result in IRBA sanctions.
Aim: This study investigates the types of audit transgressions and the repercussions of these transgressions on the severity of IRBA sanctions.
Setting: This study examines 923 audit transgressions from 01 January 2019 to 30 June 2025, and the 405 sanctions IRBA imposed to punish auditors for transgressions.
Method: Firstly, a retrospective document analysis of the types of audit transgressions was conducted. Secondly, a multivariable regression analysis was conducted to assess the likely repercussions of the various types of transgressions on the severity of imposed sanctions.
Results: Most sanctions related to non-compliance with the independence requirements of the IRBA Code and to auditors failing to obtain sufficient and appropriate audit evidence as required by ISA 500. Transgressions relating to non-compliance with Section 38(3) and 41(6)(e) of the Auditing Profession Act, Rules 2.6 and 2.7 of the Rules regarding improper conduct and ISA 705 were most influential on the value of sanctions imposed.
Conclusion: The focal point of this study is to highlight the nature of past transgressions that have resulted in IRBA sanctions, so that audit practitioners can avoid similar transgressions.
Contribution: This study provides valuable insights for practitioners, offering guidance on avoiding pitfalls that have led to past sanctions.