Showing posts with label Skop perkhidmatan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Skop perkhidmatan. Show all posts

Saturday, July 20, 2030

Skop perkhidmatan

Rakan Kongsi FAIZAL IBRAHIM
Berikut adalah teras perkhidmatan kami ditawarkan kepada pelanggan-pelanggan kami:

Khidmat Pengurusan Perakaunan

(i) Skop kerja
a. Penyediaan Akaun Pengurusan bulanan (set penuh).
b. Persembahan dan perbincangan laporan bersama-sama dengan Lembaga Pengarah/Pengurus Syarikat.
c. Membantu Syarikat-syarikat didalam mematuhi Akta Syarikat 2016, Piawaian Perakaunan Diluluskan di Malaysia dan mana-mana peruntukan undang-undang yang berkaitan.

(ii) Laporan
Laporan bulanan akan dibincangkan dan dipersembahkan kepada Lembaga/Pengurusan dimana terdiri daripada:
a. Imbangan Duga
b. Penyata Pendapatan
c. Lembaran Imbangan
d. Penyesuaian Bank
e. Akaun lejar

Khidmat Percukaian, GST dan Audit
Penyediaan pengiraan cukai pendapatan dan jadual-jadual sokongan untuk syarikat dan individu. Khidmat perundingan dan nasihat untuk pengurusan cukai yang cekap dan berkesan.Bagi perundingan audit dan percukaian, Kami memberi khidmat nasihat dan panduan dari segi penyediaan dokumen – dokumen dan pemudahcara dengan pihak juruaudit dan ejen cukai. Perancangan cukai ( tax planning ) juga akan diberi secara percuma, di mana Kami akan melihat dan menilai bahagian – bahagian Penyata Kewangan yang dapat mengawal dalam perbelanjaan cukai.

Khidmat due diligence (usaha kewajaran) dan share valuation
Menyediakan laporan komprehensif untuk membeli atau mengambil alih sesuatu entiti perniagaan dengan menilai aset – aset dan liabiliti syarikat yang berpotensi untuk berkembang maju.

Yuran
Yuran kami adalah berdasarkan masa yang digunakan semasa melaksanakan tugas dan juga bergantung kepada keperluan staf, disebabkan tahap tanggungjawab dan kemahiran yang terlibat.
Disebabkan khidmat yang khusus, kami percaya yuran kami adalah pada kadar yang berdaya saing, khidmat-khidmat ini, dimana akan dipertingkat secara berterusan, akan menjadi faktor sumbangan positif untuk semua jenis dan saiz perniagaan dan individu-individu secara keseluruhan.





Sunday, September 9, 2018

CASES INVOLVING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERS IN MALAYSIA AND OTHER JURISDICTIONS

Case
Ooi Boon Leong v. Public Prosecutor [2011] MLJU 1104 

Details
This was an appeal from the decision of the High Court in the case against Tan Yeow Teck, the former Director and Chief Financial Officer of Mems Technology Berhad (“CFO”) and Ooi Boon Leong (“CFO”). Both the Appellants were charged under section 122B(b)(bb) of the Securities Industry Act 1983 for knowingly having authorised the furnishing of a misleading statement to Bursa Malaysia Securities Berhad relating to a listed Company called, Mems Technology Bhd (“Company”). The misleading statement was contained in the Condensed Consolidated Income Statements (“ICCS) relating to the revenue of the Company for the year 2007 as at 31st July, 2007. The said ICCS showed that the Company had revenue of RM73.416 million. The said information was misleading because the figure of RM73.416 million was made of a sum RM30.169 million of sales that did not take place. 

Judgement/Outcomes
Both the CFO and CEO pleaded guilty to the charge brought against them and the Sessions Court judge imposed on each of them a fine of RM300,000 and in default of payment of the fine, 6 months’ imprisonment. Both have paid the fine. However, due to the inadequacy of the sentence, the Public Prosecutor filed an appeal to the High Court against the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court. When the appeal came before the High Court, the High Court Judge enhanced the sentence by imposing a term of 6 months’ imprisonment in addition to the fine of RM300,000 and in default of payment of the fine 2 years imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, both the CFO and CEO appealed to the Court of Appeal. Having considered the grounds of the appeal, the Court of Appeal found no reason to interfere with the sentence imposed by the High Court Judge. The appeal was therefore dismissed and the decision of the High Court Judge was affirmed.


SOURCE : MIA