What Verdica's 649 score means for Prakash Kasat
Prakash Kasat's composite score of 649 places this accounting provider in the elevated risk band (580–669). This means the provider shows mixed compliance signals that warrant closer examination before engagement. The score is not in the high-risk range, which would suggest serious, systemic problems, but it falls well short of the "acceptable" threshold (670+), where most practitioners operate with baseline compliance confidence.
For a business owner or individual considering this provider, a 649 score suggests caution is warranted. This is not a green-light provider, but neither is it a hard stop. The elevated rating indicates that specific compliance dimensions need review—particularly in licensing and credentials—while other areas show strength. Anyone considering Kasat should investigate further and verify current standing before committing to services.
How the sub-scores break down
License & Credentials (320/850): This sub-score is notably low and is the primary driver pulling down the overall composite. A score of 320 indicates material gaps or concerns in professional licensing, certifications, or credential standing tracked by New York's state board registration. In the accounting field, this dimension typically flags issues such as lapsed licenses, credential deficiencies, incomplete registrations, or historical licensing actions. A low score here signals that a provider may not hold active, current credentials required to practice, or that their credential record shows irregularities.
PCAOB Record (810/850): This is a strong sub-score, indicating that the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board's audit findings and quality review data show few or no significant deficiencies. PCAOB scores typically reflect quality control in audit work, compliance with auditing standards, and absence of major inspection findings. A score of 810 suggests Kasat's audit work and practices align reasonably well with regulatory expectations at the federal level, which is a positive signal.
Disciplinary (850/850): A perfect score on this dimension indicates no disciplinary actions, complaints, or sanctions recorded in the underlying regulatory database. This reflects a clean record at the state board level and suggests no history of formal enforcement action, customer disputes leading to board intervention, or compliance violations that triggered regulatory response.
What regulators in NY track for accounting providers
New York's accounting board and the PCAOB use distinct but complementary oversight mechanisms. The state board focuses on initial licensing, ongoing credential maintenance, and disciplinary matters—handling complaints, license renewals, and enforcement actions at the state level. State regulators examine whether a provider meets education requirements, maintains required insurance or bonding, and complies with state-specific practice rules.
The PCAOB, by contrast, conducts quality inspections of firms that audit public companies or broker-dealers. PCAOB audits examine engagement files, quality control systems, and whether firms follow auditing standards. The PCAOB publishes inspection reports that note deficiencies in audit quality, documentation, or internal controls. These findings directly influence PCAOB record scores.
Both regulators track whether providers maintain current licenses, undergo required continuing education, comply with ethics rules, and deliver work meeting professional standards. Infractions—such as license lapses, audit quality failures, or disciplinary complaints—lower scores in their respective dimensions. Conversely, clean records and no regulatory findings support higher scores.
Bottom line
Prakash Kasat's 649 score suggests this provider has a strong federal audit track record and no disciplinary history, but carries meaningful uncertainty around state-level licensing and credential status. Before engaging, verify that current, active licenses are in place and understand what the License & Credentials sub-score reflects—this is the key risk factor. If credential gaps have been resolved, the provider may be lower-risk than the score initially suggests; if not, those gaps warrant serious consideration.