Disadvantages of Traditional, Paper-Based Confirmations: What Can Go Wrong?
Manual or paper-based confirmations are severely limited because humans are free to intervene and,
intentionally or unintentionally, subvert the process. The following list summarizes some of the major
weaknesses of paper-based confirmations (see Confirmation Fraud undated).
1. The auditor selects the items for confirmation based on information in the audit client’s
accounting records and books. Consequently, he does not test for completeness via tracing
activities and may ignore information that was inadvertently or deliberately “kept off the books”.
2. The audit client provides the name of the person(s) to be contacted at third-party organizations
(e.g., banks and customers) to confirm cash and accounts receivables. If the client does not name
the “proper” respondents, the information obtained may be false.
3. The audit client also provides each respondent’s address, phone number, e-mail address, website,
and other identifying information. Once again, if this data is bogus, the information obtained may
be false.
4. It is very difficult, if not cost prohibitive, to authenticate the respondent’s signature or to ensure
non-repudiation of participation (i.e., to refute a respondent’s signature).
5. The time and financial costs involved in the traditional confirmation process can be staggering.
These costs include, but are not limited to, the preparation of written requests, paper and postage,
verification of respondent names and addresses, snail-mail delays, and reconfirmation requests to
clear up gaps in information or errors in responses.