30.04.2015 Views

Audit-Report-on-NNPC

Audit-Report-on-NNPC

Audit-Report-on-NNPC

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Investigative Forensic audit of crude oil revenues and remittances by <strong>NNPC</strong> (January 2012 – July 2013)<br />

4.2.4.2.6. Bank charges<br />

Charges deducted by the bank for certain transacti<strong>on</strong>s were identified as <strong>on</strong>e of the reas<strong>on</strong>s for the<br />

variances between amount due and amount traced to the JP Morgan statement. We traced the<br />

charges to the JP Morgan bank statement for the period under review.<br />

4.2.4.3. Domestic revenue not remitted to the Federati<strong>on</strong><br />

The total amount remitted from sale of domestic crude amounted to $14.5 billi<strong>on</strong> from our analysis.<br />

This is about half of the total revenue generated from domestic crude sales and $1.5 billi<strong>on</strong> lower than<br />

the amount claimed by <strong>NNPC</strong> as shown in the table below;<br />

SOURCE Values ($)<br />

Total Revenue 28,215,731,691<br />

Total remitted 14,542,654,329<br />

Difference 13,673,077,362<br />

Table B5– Difference between total domestic revenue generated and remittance<br />

Source – PwC analysis, CBN bank statements<br />

4.2.4.3.1. About $800,000 not remitted due to wr<strong>on</strong>g unit prices quoted <strong>on</strong> FAAC reports<br />

As explained in Secti<strong>on</strong> 4.1.4.2, while carrying out a recomputati<strong>on</strong> of crude oil revenue generated<br />

during the review period, we observed four domestic liftings 30 with differences totaling $1,250,619<br />

between the unit prices <strong>on</strong> the schedule received (which were reported to FAAC) from COMD and our<br />

recomputati<strong>on</strong>. However, our investigati<strong>on</strong> revealed that for <strong>on</strong>e 31 of the liftings (amounting to $430<br />

milli<strong>on</strong>), the amount reported to FAAC by <strong>NNPC</strong> was correct. The variance between our computati<strong>on</strong><br />

of the commercial value of the above lifting and that performed by COMD (<strong>NNPC</strong>) was due to the<br />

source informati<strong>on</strong> used for the computati<strong>on</strong> 32 . For the remaining three liftings, COMD c<strong>on</strong>firmed<br />

that a wr<strong>on</strong>g provisi<strong>on</strong>al unit price was used to remit to FAAC. Subsequent to our identificati<strong>on</strong> of the<br />

issue, <strong>NNPC</strong> has corrected the errors in the October 2014 FAAC report.<br />

Vanguardngr<br />

30<br />

See liftings 10 – 13 <strong>on</strong> Appendix 6.1.2<br />

31<br />

Lifting 13 <strong>on</strong> Appendix 6.1.2<br />

32<br />

Please see Double Valuati<strong>on</strong> issue discussed further in 4.2.6.1<br />

C<strong>on</strong>fidential informati<strong>on</strong> for the sole benefit and use of the <str<strong>on</strong>g>Audit</str<strong>on</strong>g>or-General for the Federati<strong>on</strong>.<br />

PwC 57

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!