Audit scope and plan

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

In this video we will work through a concrete decision: prepare an audit with defined criteria, limits and independence. The aim is to explain the criterion used and apply it to a workplace situation. We will start with the concept, move to the procedure and finish with a case to solve. Audit compares criteria with evidence and reports findings within a defined scope. This course proposes an internal verification approach. It is not official certification or a guarantee that no wrongdoing exists. Access to reports must remain limited and justified during audit.

An audit plan defines criteria, period, methods and necessary evidence. Section 21(3) reserves protected file access to the competent person; an auditor’s title is not an exception. Configuration checks, fictional scenarios and proportionate outputs can support lawful verification. Assess auditor independence and distinguish internal audit from authority supervision under section 22.

Apply the following rule: Section 8 generally covers employers with at least 50 employees on 1 January, designated public contracting authorities and listed regulated entities. Municipalities below 10,000 residents and specified public bodies have separate exceptions. Act No 32/2025, article XIX, added to section 8(1)(e)(8) certain persons offering or seeking admission to trading of crypto-assets other than asset-referenced or e-money tokens, and issuers of asset-referenced tokens under MiCA. Assess the listed activity rather than assuming that every firm below 50 employees is exempt.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Define objectives and audit questions. Gather current criteria and plan sources and tests. Select samples and explain limits. Combine documents, interviews and demonstrations. Set minimum access and record protection. If the team recently designed the control, assess how to preserve review objectivity. Before moving on, turn this procedure into a sequence you could explain to a colleague. Identify the first check, the action that depends on its outcome and the record that allows the decision to be reconstructed. Follow the sequence on screen and identify the point where an error would change the result.

3. Case Study & Compliance Action

An initial proposal promises certification of the entire integrity programme in two hours using only supplied documents. The team reframes it as limited documentary review of specified instruments. The report explains what was checked and what was not tested. Now read the case carefully. Separate established facts from information you would still need to confirm. Do not add motives or events that have not been described. This distinction matters when choosing a response proportionate to the information available.

The exercise is as follows: Can a limited review conclude on the entire programme's operation? Choose an answer and write one sentence explaining it. During the pause, compare your choice with the criteria we have just considered. Also think about the material you would retain to explain the decision later.

No. Conclusions must match scope and evidence. Documentary gaps may be found, but untested control effectiveness cannot be established. Explain limitations from the planning stage.

One mistake to avoid is: using total-assurance language for an assessment covering only part of the programme.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. A subsidiary copies its foreign head office's policy without assessing its own activities and size. What must it check?

Identify the local legal entity, sector, national counting method and any public-sector or territorial regimes. Then link each obligation to a source and a responsible person. A group model can support operations but does not replace this assessment.