AUDITS at the Transport and Harbours Department have revealed that the agency for the period 2003 to 2007 understated its financial statements by some $1. 7B.In the reports presented in the National Assembly, it was noted that in 2003, the department’s financial statement had indicated that the sum of $597,085,616 representing operating income was earned for the year under review. However, an analysis of the revenue received reflected the amount as $639,230,699, representing an understatement by $43,951,903 million. For 2004, the operating income earned was $332,184,018, but revenues received amounted to 639,961, 080, indicating an understatement by $307, 777,062; in 2005, the operating income earned was $362,838, 137, but the audit indicated that some $658,376,505 was received in revenues, reflecting an understatement by some $295,538, 368.
The Audit Office picked up a similar trend in 2006 and 2007. In 2006, it found that the Transport and Harbours Department reported that it had earned some $488,020, 905 in operating income, but an analysis of revenues received reflected the sum of $805, 221, 361, showing an understatement by $317, 200,456; while in 2007, the reported operating income earned was $718,051,088, but the auditors discovered that revenues received amounted to $830, 433, 355.
This represents an understatement of $112, 382, 247, and for the period 2003 to 2007 a combined total of over $1B. In 2003, the Audit Office reported that in addition, daily revenue returns that were prepared and sent by the outstations were not presented for audit verification. As a result, details of revenue collected at outstations could not be verified.
“Amount totalling $156,416,799 were expended for administrative expenses. However, the general ledger reflected the amount of $154,502,247 giving a difference of $1,914,552. As a result, the accuracy, completeness and validity of the amount expended could not be ascertained. An examination of a sample of payment vouchers revealed instances where payment vouchers were not prepared to support all the payments made. In addition, bills/receipts were not attached to vouchers. These were filed separately and in no particular order to enable verification,” the Audit Office reported.
It further noted that a “paid” stamp was not used to prevent duplication of payments and six instances totalling $438,824 were observed where acknowledgement of payee was not seen. In addition, there were two payments totalling $2,530,000 for the purchasing of computers and accessories, but there was no evidence of Tender Board procedures being adhered to nor were the items included to the fixed assets of the Department.
In the 2007 report, the auditors from an examination of a sample of payment vouchers revealed instances where payment vouchers were not prepared to support all the payments made. In addition, bills and/or receipts were not attached to vouchers. These were filed separately and in no particular order to enable verification. “As a result, of the foregoing the completeness, accuracy and validity shown as expenditure could not be verified. The amount of $790,301,465 represents depreciation charges. However, the depreciation charges were based on assets that were not properly valued by a qualified valuation officer. As a result, the completeness, accuracy and validity of the amount shown could not be determined. “The amount of $98,875,000 was shown as Fixtures and Fittings in the Financial Statement. However, the schedule of Fixed Assets does not provide a listing of Fixtures and Fittings. As a result, completeness, accuracy and validity of the amount shown could not be determined. Further, no insurance coverage was taken out on Fixed Assets by the Department and certificates of title showing ownership of buildings and vessels as shown in the financial statement were not provided for audit verification,” a section of the 2007 report by the Audit Office stated.