Avon Products, Inc

.docx

School

Cornell University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

4532

Subject

Accounting

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

2

Uploaded by BailiffMaskSalmon41

Report
AEM 4532 / NACCT 5532 – Fraud Examination Case Assignment: Avon Products, Inc. Student Name: Xiaoxu Shi Net ID: xs387 Please provide an answer to each of the case questions below. The answers in total should be at least 400 words (across all answers). 1. The improper payments made by APC occurred during the time frame that Andrea Jung served as Avon's CEO. Do you think she was responsible for those payments even if she was unaware of them? Make a case for your opinion. I think she is responsible even if she was unaware of them. As the CEO, Andrea Jung was at the top of the company's hierarchy, holding the highest authority. This meant she had the ultimate responsibility for everything the company did, including following laws like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. CEOs are expected to keep an eye on the company's operations and make sure there are proper rules in place to stop illegal things like bribery. If Avon didn't have good enough rules or oversight to stop the improper payments, Jung might be seen as responsible for that. CEOs also have a duty to take care of the company and its stakeholders, so if they don't stop illegal things from happening, even if they didn't mean to, it could be seen as not doing their duty. 2. Explain what the FCPA is and how it relates to fraud. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) is a U.S. law from 1977 aimed at stopping bribery and corruption in international business. It has two key parts: first, it forbids giving bribes to foreign officials to gain business, with serious penalties for violators; second, it mandates that companies registered with the SEC maintain accurate financial records and strong internal controls to prevent fraud, ensuring transparency and honesty in financial reporting. Overall, the FCPA plays a crucial role in preventing fraud by prohibiting bribery, promoting integrity in financial practices, and enforcing strict penalties for wrongdoing, thus enhancing accountability in global business transactions. 3. Do you agree with Avon's corporate legal staff that the potential FCPA violations were a legal issue and not an internal audit issue? Explain. I agree with the legal staff. Breaking the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) can lead to serious legal trouble, like fines or even facing criminal charges. So, dealing with FCPA problems is a legal issue that needs people who know the law well.
Keeping Things in Line: Legal teams usually make sure a company follows all the laws, including the FCPA. Since they know the law inside out, it makes sense for them to be in charge of fixing any FCPA issues to make sure the company follows the rules. 4. Research and briefly describe two other FCPA-related frauds that have occurred in the last twelve months. Did these companies admit to the FCPA violations actually being fraud? In August 10, 2023, Grupo Aval, a Colombian financial company, and its subsidiary Corficolombiana settled a corporate criminal case with the DOJ and SEC for violating the FCPA. The case involved a senior executive of a joint venture linked to Grupo Aval, who knew about bribes paid to Colombian officials to win contracts for a highway project. The executive caused over $20 million in corrupt payments through fake invoices from 2014 to 2016. Corficolombiana agreed to pay a $40.6 million penalty to DOJ, with part of it credited to a penalty from Colombian authorities. Grupo Aval also faced an SEC order, leading to over $80 million in total penalties. On September 29, 2023, the DOJ and SEC announced they reached a settlement with Albemarle, a North Carolina chemical company, for violating the FCPA. The charges claimed Albemarle made corrupt payments to officials in India, Indonesia, and Vietnam from 2009 to 2017 to win business contracts, including favoring Albemarle in tenders and sharing competitors' secrets. The SEC added allegations of private-sector bribery in India and poor financial controls in China and the UAE. Albemarle agreed to a three-year non-prosecution deal with DOJ, paying a fine of $98.2 million and forfeiting $98.5 million. They also settled with the SEC, paying $103.6 million in disgorgement. After offsets, the total penalty amounted to around $218 million.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help