what is pacific Pacific Acceptance Corp v Forsyth (1970) case about in commericial lawe judge spent some time saying these are the obligation of auditor. Here it is saying there got to be smtg to make u suspicious. The phrase we use is irregular or unusual transaction. Someone is paying them selves in an unusual way. Past transaction going to business that dont look as if they were related to the company. That type of thing. It is this indication of fraud is enough to trigger a further investigation . if you have that indication then you need to go further. But what if i dont see indication. Court will anticipate that and say it is part of the skills of an auditor to understand what the indicators of potential fraud are. You cant turn a blind out to it and say we didnt see anything bec u will be judged upon a competency of a reasonable auditor who know what the indicators of fraud are. On top of that, the court says u dont go in suspecting everyone is fraudulent of the company. But when u plan audit u need to consider the possibility of fraud