University of Liberia (UL) Professor Dr. Rexson Sandy, the defense expert witness whose request to cancel his testimony was denied by Criminal Court ‘C’ yesterday, took the stand and exposed discrepancies in the forensic audit performed by VOSCON, an accounting firm in the US$1.8 million theft case against four former employees of Liberia Coca-Cola Bottling Company (LCCBC).
VOSCON’s reports initially pronounced the defendants guilty without allowing them to go through the legal process as provided under the law.
To the utmost surprise of the defendants, it was the report that state lawyers were using as their key evidence to prosecute them on multiple criminal charges.
It was that report which the UL Professor and forensic expert ripped apart, alleging it exposed lapses and the lack of a merit system.
When he was cross examined by state lawyers, DR. Rexson, a fraud examiner, said for a professional fraud examiner to be called to testify in a court, that individual might have presented an engagement letter to that court.
Unfortunately, the UL professor said, all of the documents presented to him, believed to be VOSCON’s forensic audit report, there was no engagement letter attached.
He said an engagement letter explains in detail what the entity is hired to do in terms of the scope of operations.
“VOSCON was hired by the management of LCCBC to conduct the audit, but it did not present to the court an engagement letter which authorized the company to perform the audit,” Dr. Sandy alleged. “There is no record to show anything about what VOSCON was hired to do. As a professional person, I read it and from my opinion I saw what the expert wanted to do.”
Dr. Sandy explained further that, “in the report, the auditor or investigator was trying to determine whether the alleged misapplication was actually carried out by the defendants, but VOSCON failed to establish that because it did not follow the principle in forensic audit,” adding,” So really, based on my own professional judgment, I will not consider this report to be used in any court of law because it is incomplete and inaccurate.”
Dr. Sandy went on, “we have a principle in fraud examination that advises us not to come out with a conclusion that someone committed a fraud, because doing that would expose that person to lawsuit as we are seeing in this case.”
“Our job is to collect analysis and report our true findings to the entity that hired us to do a piece of work,” he added.
He said, “As a fraud examiner, you cannot play double standard.
“Your responsibility is to report your findings to management or your employer to prove that what you said is correct,” he emphasized.
According to him, if you discovered that the allegation is true, you can state it in the report, but the fraud examiner cannot conclude that the individual is guilty.
”By reading this report, there will be evidences that the judge or jury will use to make their determination,” Sandy said,
The case continues.