
ODYSSEAN INVESTMENT TRUST PLC
68
5. Fraud and breaches of laws and regulations – ability to
detect (continued)
The potential effect of these laws and regulations on the
financial statements varies considerably.
Firstly, the Company is subject to laws and regulations that
directly affect the financial statements including financial
reporting legislation (including related companies legislation),
distributable profits legislation, and its qualification as an
Investment Trust under UK taxation legislation, any breach of
which could lead to the Company losing various deductions
and exemptions from UK corporation tax, and we assessed the
extent of compliance with these laws and regulations as part of
our procedures on the related financial statement items.
Secondly, the Company is subject to many other laws and
regulations where the consequences of non-compliance
could have a material effect on amounts or disclosures in the
financial statements, for instance through the imposition of
fines or litigation. We identified the following areas as those
most likely to have such an effect: money laundering, data
protection, bribery and corruption legislation and certain aspects
of company legislation recognising the financial and regulated
nature of the Company’s activities and its legal form. Auditing
standards limit the required audit procedures to identify non-
compliance with these laws and regulations to enquiry of the
Directors and the Administrator and inspection of regulatory and
legal correspondence, if any. Therefore, if a breach of operational
regulations is not disclosed to us or evident from relevant
correspondence, an audit will not detect that breach.
Context of the ability of the audit to detect fraud or breaches
of law or regulation
Owing to the inherent limitations of an audit, there is an unavoidable
risk that we may not have detected some material misstatements
in the financial statements, even though we have properly planned
and performed our audit in accordance with auditing standards.
For example, the further removed non-compliance with laws and
regulations is from the events and transactions reflected in the
financial statements, the less likely the inherently limited procedures
required by auditing standards would identify it.
In addition, as with any audit, there remained a higher risk of
non-detection of fraud, as these may involve collusion, forgery,
intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of
internal controls. Our audit procedures are designed to detect
material misstatement. We are not responsible for preventing
non-compliance or fraud and cannot be expected to detect non-
compliance with all laws and regulations.
6. We have nothing to report on the other information in
the Annual Report
The directors are responsible for the other information
presented in the Annual Report together with the financial
statements. Our opinion on the financial statements does not
cover the other information and, accordingly, we do not express
an audit opinion or, except as explicitly stated below, any form
of assurance conclusion thereon.
Our responsibility is to read the other information and, in
doing so, consider whether, based on our financial statements
audit work, the information therein is materially misstated
or inconsistent with the financial statements or our audit
knowledge. Based solely on that work we have not identified
material misstatements in the other information.
Strategic report and directors’ report
Based solely on our work on the other information:
– we have not identified material misstatements in the
strategic report and the directors’ report;
– in our opinion the information given in those reports for the
financial year is consistent with the financial statements;
and
– in our opinion those reports have been prepared in
accordance with the Companies Act 2006.
Directors’ remuneration report
In our opinion the part of the Directors’ Remuneration Report to
be audited has been properly prepared in accordance with the
Companies Act 2006.
Disclosures of emerging and principal risks and
longer-term viability
We are required to perform procedures to identify whether there
is a material inconsistency between the directors’ disclosures
in respect of emerging and principal risks and the viability
statement, and the financial statements and our audit knowledge.
Based on those procedures, we have nothing material to add or
draw attention to in relation to:
– the directors’ confirmation within principal risks on page36
that they have carried out a robust assessment of the
emerging and principal risks facing the Company, including
those that would threaten its business model, future
performance, solvency and liquidity;
– the Emerging and Principal Risks disclosures describing
these risks and how emerging risks are identified, and
explaining how they are being managed and mitigated; and
– the directors’ explanation in the viability statement of how
they have assessed the prospects of the Company, over
what period they have done so and why they considered
that period to be appropriate, and their statement as
to whether they have a reasonable expectation that
the Company will be able to continue in operation and
meet its liabilities as they fall due over the period of their
assessment, including any related disclosures drawing
attention to any necessary qualifications or assumptions.
We are also required to review the viability statement, set out
on page 41 under the UK Listing Rules. Based on the above
procedures, we have concluded that the above disclosures are
materially consistent with the financial statements and our audit
knowledge.
Our work is limited to assessing these matters in the context
of only the knowledge acquired during our financial statements
audit. As we cannot predict all future events or conditions and as
subsequent events may result in outcomes that are inconsistent
with judgements that were reasonable at the time they were
made, the absence of anything to report on these statements is
not a guarantee as to the Company’s longer-term viability.