As that the financial statement was in true

As time goes by, one of the hot issues that have been mentioned numerous of time was the increase in audit failure. Audit failure is where the auditor said that the financial statement was in true and fair view but in reality, they were not (industryissues, 2013).  The last two decades have shown us some of the worst accounting scandals of all time that actually happened in our lives without realizing when it happens, why it happens, what had just happened. All these accounting scandals have put the Big Four on spots, which led us to the breach of their ethical duties. For example, the most infamous cases that affected world’s history is the Bankruptcy of Enron in 2001. Enron had been using accounting loopholes to hide billion dollars of debt and at the same time, they inflating the company’s revenue (theguardian.com, 2015). Enron cases resulted in shareholders lost over $74b, thousands of employees and investors have lost their retirement accounts, and many employees have lost their job as well. When Enron case exists, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act or well known as SOX, was created in 2002. This act agreed by the U.S Congress to protect investors from the possibility to commit fraud in accounting activities (Investopedia, no date).  In 2016, accounting firm Ernst & Young been fined by $4.975m to settle charges with its former auditors because of being too close to clients up until it involves personal matters and broke the rules (reuters, 2016). The firm does not have enough effort to detect or prevent these partners from getting too close from their client and to stick with the role of independent auditor.  As an auditor, they usually should independently check assess whether their employees have any familial, employment or financial relationships with clients. But the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) found that Gregory Bednar, who was a partner at Ernst & Young in Chicago, got too close to the chief financial officer which one of the audit client. The relationship went along after receivingthe task to improve the firm’s relationship with the company because it had been a ‘troubled account’. According to the regulator, Mr. Bednar expended more than $100,000 in entertainment spending on the executive and his son over the audit period between January 2012 and 2015. Ernst & Young and Mr. Bednar did not admit or deny the findings. The firm has agreed to pay a $4.975m fine and Mr. Bednar must pay a $45,000 penalty and be suspended from appearing and practicing before the SEC as an accountant for three years (fortune, 2016).In 2017, KPMG South African branch has been caught on growing a corruption scandal and suffered severe reputation with one of the country’s most authoritative families, the Guptas (accountancyage, 2017). The Gupta family owns a business of computer equipment, media, and mining. The Gupta family also a businessperson friend with President Jacob Zuma where there is controversial saying the Family is buying influencing government contract with the President himself (telegraph, 2017). The relationship between the Family and President does not depend on business only, but they also have close ties. This could lead to a self-interest threat and familiarity threat. KPMG has been accused of smoothing the path of the Family in tax evasion and corruption. The firm opposed of any wrongdoings but confessed that there are several misstatements regarding the family’s account. Other than that, KPMG committed one corruption related to the wedding of Vega Gupta in 2013, where there is “fund” for the wedding amounted R30m of taxpayer’s money. The Guptas claimed that these are business expenses and the family did not pay any income tax as well (accountancyage, 2017). KPMG’s audit team failed to implement sufficient professional skepticism and to give in fully with auditing standards. In result, KPMG said it would donate the R40m ($3m) it earned in fees from Gupta-controlled firms to charity and refund R23m it earned compiling a controversial report for the South African tax service (fortune, 2017).With this in mind, there is always a way to a problem. This is what they called safeguard. Safeguard is the significance of threat that should be evaluated and if the threat is other than clearly insignificant, safeguards should be considered and applied as necessary to reduce the threat to an acceptable level (auditorforum, 2017). The Concept of Framework also provides various techniques of categorizing safeguards in response to the threats. Evidently, a variety of responses to threats is possible (openscholarship, no date). In the past two cases above, we could detect two threats that occur which is self-interest threat and familiarity threats. We can mitigate the threats from arising by treating them with a professionalism. Self-interest threats is a threat where you get benefit in kind for yourself (studenttool, no date). The safeguards for self-interest threat that can be used to mitigate the threat is by going consultation with superiors or relevant professional body (Kaplan, no date). By doing that, the auditor could practice and own its professionalism. Other than that, familiarity threats also give concern towards the cases. Familiarity threat is known when the auditor is too close to their employee, supplier or client (studenttool, no date). The safeguard for familiarity threat is by disciplining yourself to not going any further special relationship to avoid bias from arising. Recent on-going cases that are not been finalized yet by the court is the case of Vodafone conflicts that affect all big four on the spot. There are sources that close to Vodafone said that Vodafone had asked three of the “big four” auditors to free themselves from potential conflicts that would prevent them pitching for the role sometime next year. One insider draw attention that this weekend, the company had made no decision to remove PwC but was taking the necessary preparatory steps in case it found itself forced to switch auditor. The problem appeared because of PwC’s dual role as auditor to Vodafone and administrator to the British mobile phone retailer. In result, there is still doubt regarding the independence of the external auditor, which made them no longer said to be independent, and no assertiveness with the auditing work. This case is still an on-going case and just reported by media (skynews, 2017).