Auditors Initial Statement: Fill & Download for Free

Due to large variety of terminology in the industry recruitment agencies have come to be known as consultancies in India. Hence, it is understandable that such queries arise.Consulting and staffing are similar in many ways. Both are temporary engagements of employees of an agency, called supplier or vendor in this arrangement as they​ ‘supply the service'; for a previously decided amount of work or duration for a fee.The difference is however in the nature of work.Consulting companies would bring expertise to a client that the client's existing employees do not have. For example, lawyers, auditors or tax accountants are typical examples of consultants. The client would need their services for a specific issue or timeframe. Similarly, in IT this can be expanded further for requirements like website, software, network, security setup and so forth.Staffing on the other hand is for work that the client's existing employees already perform. Staffing agencies help clients achieve workload and budget parameters by providing contract workers with the same skills set as the client's existing workforce. For example, staffing companies would cover maternity leaves or seasonal peaks or special one-off projects by providing temporary staff.To explain further, take a hotel business as an example. If the hotel hires an accountant to do their books once a year, that is consulting. If they hire a person to cover the front desk because their permanent front desk manager is on leave, that is staffing.To clarify my initial statement, recruitment agencies that find candidates from the market and supply them to the HR department of clients are neither staffing nor consulting companies. Staffing agencies recruit as well as take the contract workers on their payroll for the duration of the project assignment. Consulting companies also have consultants on their payroll permanently and generally move them from client to client.

I don't think anyone is going to name a company here and invite a law suit, but I can say that I have seen PCI certified companies where it took me less than an hour to determine that they were not compliant.One certification was done by one of the large US players whom I knew and upon questioning why this company had received a compliance certification, was told "it is up to the individual QSA doing the compliance to determine compliance." Upon asking about the liability of them as the company being hired to do the certification, I was referred to the initial statement and told "that person no longer works for us," as though that explains liability.I guess it is not just Indian companies that take certification with a pinch of salt, it is really a combination of the consultant who is on site and how the company he or she works for deals with governance of their employees.My belief is that if a company wants a check in the box for compliance, that is not hard to do, but a waste of time and money. PCI has real value if done properly, even if for only a part of the business, and the client being audited should ensure he gets his money's worth from an auditor/ QSA by insisting that its done by the book.Ultimately if a compromise happens, it is the merchant who faces all of the consequences and possible business failure, not the auditing company, so why try and fool oneself?

This gags me. I recently put out a report called “Rigged Justice” – highlighting 20 of the worst federal enforcement failures of 2015. In a single year, in case after case, across many sectors of the economy, federal agencies caught giant companies breaking the law — defrauding taxpayers, covering up deadly safety problems, even triggering the financial collapse in 2008 — and let them off the hook with barely a slap on the wrist. These companies paid meager fines, which some then handed over to their tax lawyers to see if they could get a tax deduction!I think about it this way: After the financial crisis, where were the full-scale public investigations? Where were the armies of auditors, seizing hard drives and poring over the financial statements? Where were the teams of regulators who were supposed to be checking the books all along? Where were the task forces — the combined efforts of federal and state officials — who cross-examined low-level dealers and got them to tell what the big guys were up to? Where were the signs — any signs at all — that real resources were devoted to thorough investigations and that somebody with real power was taking this responsibility seriously?Weak enforcement comes from the top. It starts with the people who run our government agencies. For example, strong leadership at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Department of Labor has meant strong initiatives to protect consumers and workers. But the SEC, with weak leadership, has done as little as possible to hold anyone accountable for the crash, while the Department of Justice has dodged one opportunity after another to impose meaningful responsibility on big corporations and their executives.Congress can write all the laws we want, but it matters who gets appointed to carry out those laws. It matters that we have strong, independent leaders calling the shots. It matters that we have people with enough spine to stand up to powerful companies. It matters that we have government officials who know that they work for the American people, not the corporations they regulate.