From 6 May 2026, a Singapore audit report can no longer hide behind a firm’s letterhead. Under a new provision inserted into the Accountants Act 2004 by the Corporate and Accounting Laws (Amendment) Act 2025, every audit report issued in Singapore must now state, in the report itself, the full name of the public accountant who was primarily responsible for that audit engagement and for issuing the report.
This is a small change on paper but a meaningful one in substance. Previously, a business owner or shareholder reading an audit report saw only the accounting firm’s name at the bottom. The individual public accountant who actually signed off on the engagement was findable, but only if you knew to look up ACRA’s register of auditors on Bizfile. From 6 May 2026, that information sits on the face of the document that every director, shareholder, banker and regulator actually reads.
Raffles Corporate Services has already covered several strands of this Act, including the Section 157 penalty hike for directors, the new grounds on which ACRA can refuse to restore a struck-off company, the amended Form 45 money-laundering declaration, and the two-tier approval rule for selective share buy-backs. This article looks at the audit-accountability pillar of the same Act, which commenced on the same date but has not had its own treatment until now.
What the Amendment Act Actually Requires
The named audit partner rule is inserted into the Accountants Act 2004 as a new provision on information in the auditor’s report on financial statements, added alongside a companion provision on cross-border information sharing. Both were introduced by the Corporate and Accounting Laws (Amendment) Act 2025 (Act 24 of 2025) and commenced on 6 May 2026.
In substance, the requirement has two limbs:
- The individual public accountant who performs the audit engagement must clearly state their full name in the auditor’s report.
- The accounting entity (whether an accounting corporation, accounting firm or accounting LLP) issuing the report must also clearly state, in the report itself, the full name of the public accountant who practises within that entity and who is responsible for performing the audit engagement, including issuing the report on the entity’s behalf.
The obligation applies to every audit engagement, defined broadly to cover any engagement in which a public accountant or accounting entity expresses an opinion, or a disclaimer of opinion, on whether financial statements are prepared in all material respects, or give a true and fair view (or are presented fairly), in accordance with the applicable financial reporting framework. In plain terms, this covers the ordinary statutory audit that a Singapore company undergoes when it does not qualify for, or has not elected to rely on, the small company audit exemption.
The Fine for Getting It Wrong
Failure to name the responsible public accountant, whether by the individual accountant or by the accounting entity, is a criminal offence. On conviction, the penalty is a fine of up to S$1,000. That is a modest sum compared with the S$20,000 director penalties introduced elsewhere in the same Act, but the reputational consequence of a non-compliant audit report circulating with a company’s annual filings is arguably the sharper risk. An audit report that omits the required naming is, strictly speaking, a defective report, and directors relying on it should ask their auditor to correct the omission before the financial statements are filed with ACRA.
Why Parliament Made the Change
The stated purpose, as set out in ACRA’s 16 April 2026 commencement announcement, is to promote greater personal accountability for public accountants and transparency in the auditing profession. Under the previous regime, an audit report was typically signed off in the name of the accounting firm, with the individual auditor’s identity available only through a separate lookup on the register. That structure diluted personal accountability: it was the firm’s brand on the document, not the named professional judgement of the individual who actually planned and executed the audit.
By requiring the name to appear on the report itself, the amendment puts the individual public accountant’s professional reputation visibly behind every opinion issued. It also gives directors, audit committees and shareholders a clearer basis for assessing continuity and experience when an audit report changes hands between different engagement partners from one year to the next, something that is easy to overlook when only the firm’s name appears.
The Companion Change: Sharing Information With Foreign Audit Regulators
The same batch of amendments to the Accountants Act 2004 also gives ACRA, in its capacity as audit regulator, the power to enter into arrangements with foreign audit regulators to share regulatory information obtained through its audit oversight functions. This is a separate but related pillar of the accountability push: as Singapore-based accounting entities increasingly audit subsidiaries and group entities with cross-border operations, ACRA’s ability to exchange information with its overseas counterparts, subject to ministerial approval and the safeguards written into the arrangement, supports more consistent audit-quality supervision across jurisdictions.
For most Singapore SMEs and their directors, this cross-border information-sharing power operates in the background. It matters most for audit committees of companies with overseas subsidiaries, or for accounting entities that are themselves part of an international network subject to inspection by more than one regulator. It is nonetheless part of the same accountability story: the Act strengthens both the transparency of who performed an audit and the regulatory infrastructure that oversees how well it was performed.
How This Fits the Wider 2025 Amendment Act
The Corporate and Accounting Laws (Amendment) Act 2025 was passed by Parliament on 5 November 2025 and received presidential assent on 25 November 2025. It is a substantial piece of legislation, amending seven statutes in one exercise: the ACRA Act 2004, the Accountants Act 2004, the Companies Act 1967, the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018, the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2005, the Limited Partnerships Act 2008, and the Variable Capital Companies Act 2018. Rather than commencing all at once, the Act is being brought into force in phases, with the first tranche, including the named audit partner rule, the Section 157 penalty increase, the company restoration changes and the selective share buy-back rule, commencing together on 6 May 2026.
The table below summarises where the audit-accountability changes sit alongside the other first-tranche items already covered on this site.
| Change | Statute Amended | Commencement |
|---|---|---|
| Named audit partner on audit reports | Accountants Act 2004 | 6 May 2026 |
| Information sharing with foreign audit regulators | Accountants Act 2004 | 6 May 2026 |
| Section 157 director penalty increase | Companies Act 1967 | 6 May 2026 |
| New grounds to refuse company restoration | Companies Act 1967 | 6 May 2026 |
| Two-tier approval for selective share buy-backs | Companies Act 1967 | 6 May 2026 |
What Singapore Directors and Audit Committees Should Do Now
The naming obligation falls on the public accountant and the accounting entity, not on the company being audited. Even so, directors have a practical interest in checking that the audit reports they receive comply, since a defective report can create friction with ACRA, IRAS or lenders relying on the financial statements. Three sensible steps for the current reporting season:
- When your next audit report is issued, check that it names the responsible public accountant, not only the accounting firm. This applies to reports issued on or after 6 May 2026, regardless of when the underlying audit engagement began.
- If your company relies on the small company audit exemption and does not currently need an external auditor, this change does not affect you directly, but it is worth understanding in case your growth trajectory means you will cross the thresholds and require an audit in a future financial year.
- Where your group has overseas subsidiaries audited by affiliates of your Singapore auditor’s network, ask your engagement partner whether the new information-sharing power under the Accountants Act 2004 affects how audit findings are communicated between jurisdictions.
Taken together with the other first-tranche changes under the Corporate and Accounting Laws (Amendment) Act 2025, this is part of a broader tightening of Singapore’s corporate governance framework: heavier consequences for directors who fall short, harder-to-reverse consequences for companies that are struck off, sharper anti-money laundering declarations at the point of incorporation, and now, individual accountability for the professional who signs off on the numbers.
Get the Details Right
Keeping track of which provisions of the Corporate and Accounting Laws (Amendment) Act 2025 apply to your company, and when, is not a one-person job for most busy directors. Raffles Corporate Services helps Singapore companies stay ahead of exactly this kind of regulatory change, from company secretarial compliance to coordinating with your auditor on reporting obligations. If you are unsure how the 6 May 2026 changes affect your next audit cycle or annual filing, speak to our team before your next reporting deadline.
The Editorial Team, Raffles Corporate Services