https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/kpmg...s-serba-dinamik

Didn't realise that article was edited and added a lot of very interesting stuff.....

Below are the pertinent points raised by KPMG, and the responses provided by Serba Dinamik in the filing:

(A) Certain customers’ confirmation relating to sales transactions, trade receivables and material on site balances

KPMG had sent out confirmations on the aforesaid balance where only one reply out of 12 customers was received by KPMG.

In order to hasten the process, the Company had subsequently sent a second confirmation to the remaining 11 customers with the same amount as in our first confirmation to the relevant debtors of which all have replied.

Based on the meeting dated 3 May 2021, KPMG has yet to test the completeness and is not able to verify the authenticity of the confirmations identified nor validate the person signing the confirmation.

Serba Dinamik’s actions for (A):

Proposed to arrange for interviews and other means of communication between KPMG and certain debtors to clarify matters;

The board also suggested to KPMG to send the third confirmation;

Requested KPMG to share the signed confirmation that was in contentious for the Company’s further investigation; and

Commitment to continuously assist KPMG.

(B) Certain transactions on purchases and trade payables balances on local supplier

Two local suppliers were incorporated on the same day.

Four local suppliers were found to have the same registered address as the two local suppliers above

Five out of the six suppliers were noted to have paid-up capital of RM100,000 each whereby each supplier is owned by an individual shareholder despite having transactions which ranges between RM60 million to RM96 million.

Serba Dinamik’s actions for (B):

Choice of local suppliers

The Government of Malaysia has implemented the Vendor Development Program (VDP) since 1998 of which the objective is to develop Bumiputera vendors to be successful in the manufacturing and services industry.

The Company became a Petronas vendor in 1997 and graduated from Petronas vendor in 2007 and subsequently, the government has appointed the Group as the anchor company for the program. The aforesaid suppliers are assessed and recommended by supply change management under the VDP.

Companies that were appointed as the group’s vendors do not require to have huge share capital as a condition to assign and fresh vendors will also be considered, through VDP.

Same address of local suppliers

Company has informed that the registered address was actually the company secretary’s office and these companies are using the same secretarial services. Arrangement on further interviews with the local suppliers 2 suppliers have agreed to meet up with KPMG. Notwithstanding, KPMG has yet to take any further action.

© Further information relating to customer and supplier in Bahrain

Office address cannot be located on physical site for the supplier and customer

KPMG has noted fax contact number of the customer as indicated in the official website is registered under one of the group’s employee but using ‘Truecaller’ application.

Serba Dinamik’s reply:

KPMG has sighted the wrong address and accordingly management had on May 6, 2021 provided KPMG with the right address.

Management had provided KPMG with the official telecommunication bill from the provider.

(D) Trade receivables balances and sales transactions for information technology contracts

KPMG had noted that there was no company registration number and registered business of the customers as indicated in their respective contracts

(i) Certain suppliers’ invoices do not have registration numbers;

(ii) Two suppliers' and two customers' company stamps did not bear registration numbers;

(iii) Differences in the names contained in legal contract agreement, invoices, user acceptance test and customers' company stamps;

(iv) Differences in addresses contained in legal contract agreement compared with customers’ websites;

(v) Six out of seven customers will make direct payment to subcontractors and the Group will receive the net amount; and

(vi) Three customers have minimal share capital and were only incorporated in 2019 and 2020, one of the customer’s principal activities did not appear to be IT related.

KPMG viewed that they are unable to determine the appropriateness of the contracts and transactions as well as the revenue and cost recognised based on the above.

Serba Dinamik’s reply:

In relation to (i) to (iv)

The management noted that KPMG had extracted the wrong addresses from the document.

Informed KPMG that there is no requirement for the company in the said jurisdictions to put the company’s registration number in the invoices but nevertheless the said number was stated at the bottom page of the invoices.

There is no requirement for the company in the said jurisdictions to put the company’s registration number in the stamp.

With regards to the different name, there is no significant differences in the name which has been highlighted e.g. “Ltd” or “Limited” / LLC against L.L.C.

In terms of legal contract agreement against the website address, (1) in one of the company, there was a slight typo in the address and; (2) for another case, the contract is as per the place of business whilst the website stated their registered office.

In relation to (v)

The mentioned subsidiary has entered into a tripartite agreement at client’s request where payment will be made directly to the sub-contractor. The company is of the view that the subsidiary acted as a principal to meet the contract’s obligations and hence, we believed that this subsidiary is able to recognise the revenue and cost associated with the contract.

In relation to (vi)

The company does not view that its customers’ profile must include huge paid-up capital in their books so long as the relevant customers are able to secure the contracts from the ultimate contract awarder and meet the legal requirements to perform such contracts. In relation to the company of which the principal activities do not appear to be IT related, there are no legal restrictions for them to participate in any other business activities.

Edited by Kathy Fong

==================================

WOW!! WOW!! WOW!!!

I am no auditor but the questions/issues raised by KPMG sounds very legit... which makes the proposal to remove the auditor simply ludicrous! 

KPMG is doing what an auditor is supposed to do. Serba can not be allowed to remove KPMG!

And the issues raised.....

1. 1 out 12 customers replied confirmation of sales transactions, trade balances and site balances. Damn... are the transactions even real?

2. Even suppliers got 'issues'. What are the chances of 2 suppliers incorporating on the same day? And these 2 new suppliers have the same address with 4 other suppliers? So 6 suppliers have same address? Damn......

3. Bahrain. Supplier and customer cannot be located??? Damn... and one of the customer website is registered under one of Serba's employee name.... Damn.....

4. And the IT division.... 
No wonder KPMG had taken bold step and raising these issues.......

-0.005

9.32 alr, doesnt look like can pickup

KUALA LUMPUR (June 23): The Securities Commission and Bursa Malaysia have both come out to deny that they had spoken with Serba Dinamik Holdings Bhd chairman Datuk Mohamed Ilyas Pakeer Mohamed.

On Tuesday, Mohamed Ilyas, who was appointed to Serba Dinamik’s board of directors just 11 days earlier, told a virtual press conference that he found KPMG’s audit on Serba Dinamik as having been sub-par and that issues raised were trivial.

He also said he had spoken to SC and Bursa Malaysia on the matter, adding KPMG had misled the regulator, the exchange and Serba Dinamik’s board of directors.

“In the light of recent events, the SC wishes to reiterate that under the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007, auditors have a statutory obligation to immediately report to the SC, if they reasonably believe that there are any matters which may constitute a breach or non-performance of any requirement of securities laws, rules of the stock exchange or any matter which may adversely affect to a material extent, the financial position of the listed company,” the SC said.

“The SC’s Audit Oversight Board also stated that external auditors play an important role in promoting confidence in the quality and reliability of audited financial statements in Malaysia.

“As such, auditors should be allowed to carry out their responsibilities and render their independent opinion without fear or favour, and discharge their duties free from any retaliation,” it said.

they sure appoint "orang kita" onboard one ma 

What kinda integrity does a chairman have when literally caught lying when SC and BURSA made public statement announcement about it?
Seems like main berterabur sweeping statement and hope for the best.
His words do not hold weight anymore and wanna lead the company by this kinda example?
If I'm the investor/shareholder, how to continue have confidence?

karim companys all joined diver club. what happen ya.

41 sen

https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/serb...er-audit-issues

Paper loss over RM 1,000,000,000

his kpower and scib up 12% today  syndicates always win

Exit at 0.40

My sincere appreciation to the Board of Serba and their ex auditors KPMG for this opportunity.

wow all 3 rise up a lot today. syndicates winning