RecordLens
Menu

Claim review. Accounting

Opinion

The statement is evaluative and cannot be resolved as a factual proposition.

A May 2018 joint report of two House of Commons committees said KPMG was complicit in Carillion's aggressive accounting judgements.

KPMG was complicit in them.
About
KPMG LLP
Claim made by
House of Commons Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Work and Pensions Committees, official report
Published
16 May 2018
Original
Carillion
Evidence score
73 How it was scored
Last reviewed
25 October 2026

Why this label

The report's checkable facts are that KPMG was paid GBP 29 million over 19 years and never qualified its audit opinionS3. Its word complicit is the committees' evaluation. A later regulator record found failures in evidence and scepticism, with admissionsS1. The FRC found the breaches in one decision were not intentional, dishonest, deliberate or reckless and the main ones not dishonestS1. Complicity is not a legal finding any authority made against the firm. The judgment in the report cannot be resolved as fact, so it is recorded as opinion.

Current procedural position

Parliamentary committee report published on 16 May 2018S3. Not a legal finding. Later FRC sanctions on 12 October 2023S1.

Record supporting the assessment

Not once during that time did they qualify their audit opinion on the financial statements
S3 Tier A House of Commons Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Work and Pensions Committees, Carillion, 16 May 2018
KPMG was complicit in them.
S3 Tier A House of Commons Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Work and Pensions Committees, Carillion, 16 May 2018

Conflicting or limiting record

The breaches found in Decision 2 were not intentional, dishonest, deliberate or reckless.
S1 Tier A Financial Reporting Council, Sanctions against KPMG LLP, KPMG Audit plc and two former partners, 12 October 2023

Evidence score: 73 of 100

The score grades how well the record establishes this assessment. It is not a score of KPMG LLP. Score = source authority + directness + corroboration + procedural accuracy + currency + reproducibility.

ComponentPointsMaxReason
Source authorityIs the source competent to establish the proposition?2230A parliamentary report is an official record of the committees' view, not an adjudication.
DirectnessDoes the source state the proposition or only discuss adjacent facts?1720The report states the view directly.
CorroborationDo independent records support the same material point?915The FRC found serious failures but not complicity.
Procedural accuracyDoes the record settle the procedural state the claim describes?615No tribunal has decided the complicity point.
CurrencyHas the record been checked against later developments?910Checked against the October 2023 FRC sanctions.
ReproducibilityCan a reader locate the passage and repeat the assessment?1010The report is public on the parliament site.
Total73100

Timeline

  1. Joint committee report publishedS3
  2. FRC sanctions with findings of breachS1

Related cases

Revision history

  • Assessment first published with label Opinion.

Have a record that changes this assessment? See corrections and responses.

Sources

  1. S3Tier A CarillionHouse of Commons Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Work and Pensions Committees. Commission report. 16 May 2018.Chapter 2 of the joint committee report, on external checks including the auditors. Supports the fee and tenure facts and records the committees' opinions. It is not a legal finding.Link working, checked 25 October 2026
  2. S1Tier A Sanctions against KPMG LLP, KPMG Audit plc and two former partnersFinancial Reporting Council. Regulator press release. 12 October 2023.Supports the fines, the admitted breaches in the 2013 to 2016 Carillion audits and the finding that some breaches were not dishonest. The full decision documents were not read.Link working, checked 25 October 2026

Other claims about KPMG LLP