FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Auditors
Auditors can use machine translation to read foreign-language contracts and records in group audits, but a mistranslated term can change the accounting treatment. Translation is a use the FRC lists, so the same certification and review expectations apply.
Part of: AI in Auditors
In short
Group audits often involve components with records in other languages. AI translation tools can turn a contract, board minute or bank letter into English in seconds, which helps the group team review evidence directly. The danger is subtle: a translation can read fluently while getting a legal or accounting term wrong, such as a guarantee, a retention of title or a termination right. The FRC treats translation as one of the uses it sees in practice, and its 2026 guidance on deficient output and misuse applies. If a mistranslation leads to a misstatement, the claim will look at how the translation was verified.
In a UK group audit with overseas subsidiaries, the group team may need to review component contracts, minutes, loan agreements or regulatory correspondence that are not in English. Machine translation, increasingly powered by large language models, lets the team read these quickly instead of waiting for a professional translator or relying entirely on component auditors' summaries.
The FRC lists translation among the AI uses it sees in practice in its 2026 factsheet. It is easy to adopt and often feels low risk, which is partly why it can escape the controls applied to more obviously technical tools.
The FRC's Generative and Agentic AI Guidance names deficient output, including distortions and omissions, as a risk to audit quality. A translation that drops a qualifying clause is a clear example. Misuse of output, such as treating a general translation tool as reliable for legal terms it was not built for, is the second risk. The four mitigations, including human-in-the-loop review, apply in proportion to the use.
ISQM (UK) 1 requires the firm's technological resources to be appropriate, and ISA (UK) 230 paragraph 8 means the file should record that a translation tool was used, which version, and how the translation was checked. ISA (UK) 220 keeps responsibility with the group engagement partner. Confidentiality also matters: putting client contracts into a public translation service may breach the Code's confidentiality requirements.
Illustrative scenario: a group team machine-translates a distribution agreement for an overseas subsidiary. The translated text describes a 'consignment-style arrangement' in general terms, but the original contains a clause giving the distributor an unconditional right to return unsold goods. The team accepts revenue on delivery. After the year end, large returns come back, revenue is restated and the group's lender asks why the audit did not catch it.
Other failure points: numbers and dates converted wrongly between local and UK formats, legal terms translated literally into English words with a different meaning, and partial documents translated because the tool truncated a long file.
Over-reliance can also run the other way. A group team that machine-translates a component's evidence may feel it has reviewed the document itself, and ask fewer questions of the component auditor who actually understands the local legal context. The translation should prompt questions, not close them.
A claim arising from a component-level misstatement would usually be brought against the group auditor's firm and handled under its PI policy, subject to its terms. Whether the group auditor or a component auditor bears responsibility, and whether contribution can be sought between firms, depends on the facts and the arrangements. Territorial limits in the policy can matter where work or claimants are overseas. The recoverable loss is shaped by scope of duty. See audit firm PI cover and translation accuracy claims for how translation errors feature in claims more widely.
Related: AI document matching, AI contract review for revenue and the FRC guidance explainer.
Apex arranges PI for audit firms, including those with overseas components on their group audits, and can check your policy's territorial scope. See the AI in audit hub.
For understanding, it can help. For terms that drive the accounting, a machine translation should be checked by someone fluent in the language, because a fluent-looking translation can still change the meaning. The FRC treats distortions and omissions as deficient output.
Yes. The FRC expects the file to show the tool used, its version and how its output informed judgements. For translation, that includes how key clauses were verified and keeping the original document alongside.
It can be. Client contracts are confidential information under the ethics Code, and the FRC notes cyber risk when audited entity data is put into cloud-based AI applications. Use firm-approved tools with appropriate data terms.
Claims usually target the group auditor, who signs the group opinion. Whether responsibility is shared with a component auditor depends on the facts and arrangements between them. The group engagement partner remains responsible for the group audit under ISA (UK) 220.
Tell us about your firm and the work you do. A broker will review how your current PI treats AI-assisted work, or arrange new cover. No fee for a quote. Or call 0117 325 0027.
Start a PI quote Request a callbackApex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales, company number 07014570. This page is general information about how AI is used in the profession and how insurance may respond. It is not legal, regulatory or insurance advice on your circumstances, and it does not guarantee that cover will be available or on what terms.
