IIA-CIA-Part2 Exam Dumps : Practice of Internal Auditing

In internal auditing, the reliability of evidence is critical. According to IIA standards, evidence that is obtained directly from an external source, such as a customer, is generally considered more reliable, especially when it is timely.

IIA Standard 2310 – Identifying Information:

This standard requires that internal auditors obtain sufficient, reliable, relevant, and useful information to achieve the engagement’s objectives. Evidence obtained directly from external sources is often deemed more reliable because it is less likely to be biased or manipulated.

Direct Evidence:

Evidence obtained directly from a customer is considered highly reliable because it comes from an independent and external party. It is less likely to be influenced by internal pressures or conflicts of interest.

Timeliness:

The timeliness of evidence also affects its reliability. Recent and relevant information is more likely to accurately reflect the current state of affairs, making it more reliable for decision-making.

Option A (Untested third party): Although external, the reliability of evidence from an untested third party is uncertain until their credibility is established.

Option B (Uncorroborated evidence from an employee): This is less reliable as it may be subject to bias or self-interest.

Option C (Undocumented evidence from a manager): Undocumented evidence is generally less reliable as it lacks supporting documentation that can be verified.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?

When management decides not to implement a critical recommendation, especially one related to regulatory compliance and potential reputational risk, it is essential for the chief audit executive (CAE) to escalate the issue to senior management. This step ensures that management fully understands the risks involved and can make an informed decision.

IIA Standard 2600 – Communicating the Acceptance of Risks:

This standard requires the CAE to communicate to senior management and the board when management has accepted a level of risk that the CAE believes is unacceptable. The CAE must ensure that the decision-makers are aware of the potential consequences.

Importance of Escalation:

By convening a meeting with senior management, the CAE can discuss the risks of non-compliance, including potential regulatory sanctions and reputational damage. This discussion provides an opportunity for senior management to reassess the decision in light of these risks.

IIA Practice Advisory 2600-1:

The advisory suggests that when significant risks are not being addressed by management, the CAE should communicate these concerns to higher levels of the organization. This ensures that the risks are not ignored and that appropriate action can be taken.

Option A (Do nothing): This is not appropriate, as the CAE has a responsibility to escalate significant risks.

Option B (Contact regulatory agency): This is an extreme step and should not be the first course of action. The issue should be discussed internally before involving external regulators.

Option D (Highlight to external auditors): While external auditors might need to be informed, the issue should first be addressed within the organization.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?

The chief audit executive (CAE) has the responsibility to communicate audit results, including residual risks, to senior management. According to IIA Standard 2410 - Criteria for Communicating, the CAE should communicate the engagement’s objectives, scope, conclusions, recommendations, and action plans. Residual risk, being a part of the audit outcome, should be reported at the same time as the audit results to ensure that senior management is fully informed of all aspects of the engagement. This allows senior management to understand the remaining risks after control measures have been applied.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2410 - Criteria for Communicating