IIA Updated IIA-CIA-Part2 Exam Questions and Answers by aydan

When the board requests consulting services to gain insight regarding external risks, the appropriate engagement objective is to assess the organization's ability to minimize these risks. This involves evaluating the organization's risk management framework, including identifying external risks, assessing their potential impact, and reviewing the effectiveness of the strategies and controls in place to mitigate these risks. By doing so, internal auditors provide valuable insights into how well the organization is prepared to handle external threats and ensure the achievement of its annual objectives.

References:

Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standards: Performance Standards 2110: Governance

COSO Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework: Risk Assessment and Risk Response Components

The chief audit executive (CAE) is responsible for the approval of the engagement objectives and scope. While the head of customer service and other stakeholders may provide input, it is ultimately the CAE's responsibility to ensure that the engagement aligns with the internal audit plan and meets the organization's overall objectives. The CAE's approval ensures the independence and objectivity of the internal audit function.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standard 2010 - Planning

IIA Standard 2200 - Engagement Planning

Utilizing an external fraud specialist in a suspected fraud investigation offers several advantages, particularly in preserving evidence and maintaining the chain of command. This is crucial for ensuring that the investigation is conducted legally and that any findings can be used in potential legal proceedings.

Expertise in Evidence Handling:

External fraud specialists typically have specific expertise in collecting, preserving, and documenting evidence in a manner that maintains its integrity. This includes maintaining a proper chain of custody, which is essential for legal admissibility.

IIA Practice Guide on Fraud Investigations:

The IIA suggests that involving specialists can enhance the credibility and effectiveness of an investigation. Specialists are trained to handle sensitive evidence and ensure that it is preserved correctly, reducing the risk of contamination or loss.

Chain of Command:

Maintaining a clear and secure chain of command during an investigation is critical. An external specialist is often better equipped to manage this process, ensuring that evidence is not tampered with and that all actions are documented appropriately.

Option A (Increased access to employees): While an external specialist may interview employees, this is not their primary advantage over internal auditors.

Option C (Increased ability to scrutinize processes): Specialists are skilled at this, but the key advantage lies in evidence preservation.

Option D (Increased access to software and data): Access to proprietary data is important, but internal auditors usually have this access as well.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?

According to IIA guidance, if the internal audit team lacks the necessary skills and knowledge to perform an audit, the CAE should consider obtaining external expertise. Accepting the engagement and hiring an external expert allows the internal audit activity to leverage specialized knowledge while fulfilling the audit request. This approach ensures that the audit is conducted effectively and meets the required standards, while also addressing any competency gaps within the internal audit team.

References:

Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standards: Attribute Standards 1210: Proficiency

IIA Practice Guide: Obtaining External Assistance in the Conduct of Internal Auditing