Wirecard was a German payments company. On 18 June 2020 it said its auditor, EY, could not confirm about 1.9 billion euros of cash that was supposed to sit in trust accounts, and days later it said the money probably did not exist. In 2023 the German audit regulator APAS fined EY's German firm 500,000 euros and barred it from taking new public-interest audit clients for two years, according to news reports.
Last reviewed: 17 October 2026. Facts checked. We read search summaries of news coverage (Reuters, AP, Bloomberg, Al Jazeera, ABS-CBN, Finextra and others) of the June 2020 events and of the APAS decision. We did not open APAS's own statement, which we could not find through search, and we did not find a verdict in the Munich criminal trial. We did not verify any German law reform, so none is described here. Where something is only alleged, we say so.
What happened, in order
| Date | Event | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| April 2020 | A KPMG special audit reported problems, according to coverage | News summary |
| 18 June 2020 | Wirecard said EY could not confirm about 1.9 billion euros of trust account balances | News summaries |
| June 2020 | Two Philippine banks, BDO and BPI, denied Wirecard was ever a client. BDO said a document was falsified | News summaries |
| 22 June 2020 | Wirecard said it was likely the balances did not exist and withdrew its 2019 statements | News summaries |
| December 2022 | Criminal trial of the former CEO and others began in Munich | News summaries |
| 30 March 2023 | APAS decision on the auditor, announced 3 April 2023 | News summaries |
Philippines' central bank said none of the money appeared to have entered the country, per the same coverage.
What the regulator decided about the audit
According to Bloomberg, Reuters and AP coverage, APAS found breaches of professional duty in the audits of Wirecard's 2016 to 2018 financial statements. It:
- fined EY's German firm 500,000 euros;
- barred it for two years from taking on new audits of public-interest companies, while existing mandates were not covered;
- sanctioned five individual auditors with fines reported between 23,000 and 300,000 euros.
EY told the press that it had cooperated fully and that its German firm is a different company today. The decision could be appealed, and one report says EY did not contest it. We rely on press accounts here and cannot confirm the exact wording.
The criminal case
The former chief executive, Markus Braun, and two others were charged. Prosecutors alleged falsified books and harm to lending banks. Braun has said he had no knowledge of forgeries or embezzlement. As of 17 October 2026 the Munich trial was still running, with a German press agency (dpa) report of 8 October saying the court was aiming for closing arguments in November 2026, so there was no verdict. We state no outcome. If a verdict has been given since, check the Munich court's own communication.
Why this case matters to auditors
The audit lesson is narrow and practical. The key balance was cash held, on paper, with third parties abroad. Evidence about it came through trustees and statements. The Philippine banks later said the documents were not theirs.
- Confirm directly with the bank, in your control. Send the request yourself, to an address you verified independently, and receive the reply yourself. Our guide to external confirmations under SA 505 shows the control points.
- Do not accept third-party documents that come through management. A trustee's statement passed on by the client is still client-supplied evidence.
- Question a large share of assets that sits outside the group. Cash that makes up a large part of total assets, held by others, needs more than a routine test.
- Keep scepticism at the same level year after year. Press reports that questioned the company over several years are a reminder to ask what has changed. We make no claim about what the auditor did or did not know.
- Know what your own regulator expects. In India, NFRA inspects auditors of larger entities, as our UK FRC and NFRA comparison explains.
What it taught regulators
Press coverage at the time said the heads of Germany's financial supervisor BaFin and of its audit watchdog both stepped down after the collapse. We could not confirm the details of subsequent legislation, so we do not describe it. The visible regulatory consequence we can support is the APAS decision above.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happened at Wirecard?
Wirecard said on 18 June 2020 that its auditor could not confirm about 1.9 billion euros of cash, and later said the balances probably did not exist. Criminal proceedings followed in Munich.
Was EY found at fault?
APAS, the German audit regulator, found breaches of professional duty in EY's audits of Wirecard's 2016 to 2018 accounts and imposed a fine and a two-year bar on new public-interest clients, according to press reports.
Was the CEO convicted?
As of 17 October 2026, no. The trial was still running and closing arguments were expected from November 2026. He faced charges and denied them. A verdict may have come since, so check the court's own announcements.
How do bank confirmations stop this kind of fraud?
They do not stop it by themselves. They make it harder when the auditor controls the request and the reply. See our note on audit evidence.
Is Wirecard relevant to Indian CA firms?
Yes. Any audit where cash or receivables are held with third parties has the same risk, and SA 505 and SA 500 apply.
Related Articles
Statutory facts on this page are checked against their sources, and the page says where it relied on secondary reporting. How we verify · Report an error