“It appears that the senior financial officer has abused his access and knowledge of the firm’s security protocols and partners’ personal information… The partners are the only people affected.”
Although the partners may be the “only people affected”, by no means does this signify that only a few people are aggrieved by the alleged misappropriation. Minter Ellison Adelaide has over 45 partners, while the Darwin office – which shares profits with the Adelaide office – is now (we think) staffed by 5 partners. That’s over 50 people potentially affected by the alleged fraud.
Questions Raised over Minters Audit
With so many partners affected, it is a safe bet to assume that Minters is now wondering where to apportion blame. First stop – the firm’s auditor. This from the official Minters statement:
The firm’s trust account is a separate account and is independently audited by a leading global accounting firm. In light of the evidence uncovered, Minter Ellison instructed the accounting firm to again audit the clients’ trust account. Those auditors have confirmed, after completing their examination, that there is no evidence that the trust account has been tampered with.
If no evidence of “tampering” were found second-time around, it sounds like the auditors either got it right in the first instance, or got it wrong twice. We emailed Minters asking the firm to name its auditor, but as at the time of publication, we had not received a response. We naturally turned to Google and discovered that the firm’s NZ-based affiliate – Minter Ellison Rudd Watts – is audited by Deloitte. After we assumed that Deloitte also audited the books of Minters in Adelaide/Darwin, two questions arose in our minds:
- How could an audit fail to uncover the alleged misappropriation of several million dollars? and
- If Deloitte satisfactorily audited the firm, why would Minters decline to name it?
What do you think the answers are? We invite your comments below.
The Charitable Devil: FS Focus on Craig Raneberg
Before you lock him up and throw away the key, take a moment to consider Craig Raneberg’s tremendous generosity of spirit. Yes, even if the allegations are proven true, we think Mr Raneberg would be well-advised to ask the court for clemency on a “modern-day Robin Hood” defence.
You see, in between his busy days as Minters’ former CFO, Mr Raneberg manages to devote unpaid time to the Adelaide Fringe Festival – he is listed as its Deputy Chair and Treasurer. We’re assuming, of course, that Mr Raneberg is indeed unpaid for his work and doesn’t divert any donated funds for some ulterior purpose. To be sure, we sent the following email to the remaining members of the Adelaide Fringe Inc Board:
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Investigation of Craig Raneberg
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 02:32:17 -0400
From: news@firmspy.com
To: <board@adelaidefringe.com.au>, <buzz@adelaidefringe.com.au>Hi,
We’re interested in whether Adelaide Fringe has a statement on the investigation being conducted into deputy chair, and former Minter Ellison CFO, Craig Raneberg. Is Adelaide Fringe considering a re-audit of its accounting records over the period of Mr Raneberg’s involvement?
Regards,
FS
As at the time of publishing this post, we had not heard back from the Adelaide Fringe Board.
But if you thought it was enough to selflessly devote time to a Registered Cultural Organisation such as Adelaide Fringe Inc, think again. Mr Raneberg was so taken recently by the plight of the late Nicholas McInerney – who tragically died from cancer at a young age – that he dug deep for a charity named in Nicholas’ honour. The charity, designed to enable Mr McInerney’s surviving relatives raise and direct funds to deserving charities, had the following donation listed on its website:
|
Craig Raneberg
|
26 May 11
|
donation
|
$100.00 AUD
|
Best of luck
|
There you have it – $100 for all the kids with cancer out there. If you’re minded to contribute, click here.
But the apparent charitable worthiness of Craig Raneberg does not stop at alternative art festivals and kids with cancer: it extends to B-grade Australian movie productions featuring our very own failed actress, Kylie Minogue. According to IMDB, “special thanks” were reserved for Craig Raneberg’s undisclosed involvement in the 2000 film Sample People.
The film, which had an estimated budget of $2million, features the following IMDB “plot key words”:
Gang. Gangster. Armed Robbery. Hedonism. Gun. Drug Dealer. Dancing. Money. Gang Boss. Alleyway. Betrayal. Mistress. Violence.
WANTED: Craig Raneberg Flees Australia
This reminded us of the late fraudster Max Green, an Australian lawyer who was also alleged to have misappropriated millions of dollars and who also fled to Asia with an investigation pending. According to Wikipedia:
On 24 March 1998, Max Green stayed overnight at the Sofitel Cambodiana. He had booked a flight at 11am the next day to Hong Kong. His body was found by a maid the next day, face down on the bed, with massive injuries to his skull and face. The cause of death was strangulation by a necktie… His face was disfigured so badly that after he was buried in Melbourne, his body was exhumed so that the Coroner could make doubly sure that it was him. His killer or killers were never found.
Loading...
Don’t think that it was Deloitte.
From the Lawyers Weekly article, I thought that it the guy stole money from an account that was NOT the client trust account. The statement by Minters about auditing was only made in relation to their client trust account, which has not been pilfered. They were basically trying to assure clients that they had audited the client trust account twice that particular account was fine.
I don’t think they have made any statement about an audit of the account that was actually pilfered.
Whether it was Deloitte or someone else that audited the trust account-
A trust account audit is dramatically different in terms of scope and the level of assurance provided to a regular financial statement audit. Think of trust account audits as compliance audits, with reasonability checks on spending/receipts by the law firm.
Financial statement audits go into internal controls, processes, systems, etc.
So the real answer is – given that it’s unlikely that a partnership goes through an external audit, the firm only has itself to blame for the fraud. The trust fund audit is to make sure that no client moneys were involved.
Doesn’t specify that the same accounting firm audits their books as audits the trust account. It’s likely separate.