Accounting Fraud, the Investor and the Sarbanes Oxley Act Essay

Throughout history and in our own time, legitimate accounting methods have been utilized to fraudulently engage in manipulating activities that results in illicit gains to the perpetrators and losses to individuals and financial institutions.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), also known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act and the Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act, was signed into law on July 30, 2002, by President George W. Bush as a direct response to the corporate financial scandals of Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco International (Arens & Elders, 2006; King & Case, 2014;Rezaee & Crumbley, 2007). Fraudulent financial activities and substantial audit failures like those of Arthur Andersen and Ernst and Young had destroyed public trust and investor confidence in the accounting profession. The debilitating consequences of these perpetrators and their crimes summoned a massive effort by the government and the accounting profession to fight all forms of corruption through regulatory, legal, auditing, and accounting changes.

A major impetus behind the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was deliberate financial statement fraud. When committed on a large scale, billions of dollars can be lost and investor confidence in financial market will be reduced. Evidence suggests that the incidence of fraud has declined relative to the pre-SOX era. This can only be interpreted as suggesting that SOX

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was implemented and designed to “protect the interests of the investing public” and the “mission is to set and enforce practice standards for a new class of firms registered to audit publicly held companies” (Verschoor, 2012). During the early 2000 's, the world saw an alarming number of accounting scandals take place resulting in many corporations going bankrupt. Some of the major companies involved in these scandals were from Enron, WorldCom, and one of the top five accounting and auditing firms, Arthur Andersen. These companies were dishonest with their financial statements, assuring the public the company was very successful, when in reality they were not. This became a problem because if the public believes a company is doing well, they are more likely to invest in it. That is to say, once these companies were exposed, it caused a number of companies going bankrupt and a major mistrust between the public and the capital market. Consequently, the federal government quickly took action and enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002, also known as SOX, which was created by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Many have questioned what Norman Bowie (2004) had questioned,

The act identifies and assigns accountability to those who knowingly falsify documents and it clearly states the consequences for acting outside the defined standard, relating to corporate governance. Using case studies we will review how the passing of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is helping to standardized a code of conduct and how it has increased the awareness of corporate responsibility. First, we will review the definitions of corporate governance, business ethics and corporate responsibility. Next, we will examine the effectiveness of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, through a case study and identify possible challenges the Sarbanes-Oxley Act may face, as public demand for social responsibility increases. Finally, we will review proactive recommendations for provisions to key titles of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. These provisions will accommodate the growing public demand for ethical and social responsibility.

In the early 2000’s there were a series of financial scandals that took place by large companies such as Enron, Tyco, and WorldCom. The impact of these scandals was significant. Investors lost large amounts of money. Employees of the scandalous companies not only lost their jobs but lost their life savings. The financial scandals that had taken place were so severe that an Act was created in response to them in hopes to prevent these scandals from happening. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, also referred to as SOX or Sarbanes-Oxley, was created by Senator Paul Sarbanes and Representative Michael Oxley and was signed into law by President George W. Bush on July 30, 2002. The creation and passing of the act was so tremendous that “in the opinion of most observers of securities legislation” Sarbanes-Oxley was “viewed as the most important new law enacted since the passage of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934” (Ink.com 2008).

A lot has been made, perhaps without justification, of the July 30, 2002 passage of H.R. 3763, The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("Sarbanes-Oxley" or The Act). Having read the Act, I suspect that the great praise is unfounded. I intend to address three issues presented within the act. First, I will address stock options as considered (or neglected, as the case may be) by Sarbanes-Oxley. Second, I will address the creation of a Commission designed to oversee audits and corporate accounting practices, and the potential efficacy of this Commission. Finally, I will address the modifications to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines as it relates to corporate fraud.

I believe the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been effective in managing the risks exposed through previous corporate fraudulent financial reporting scandals. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act makes fraudulent financial reporting a crime in which strong penalties can be enforced (Ferrell & Ferrell, 2013). This act also protects investors as corporations are required to be transparent with their finances as well as to create a code of ethics in which they are to abide. The purpose of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, also known as SOX, is to make top executives responsible for the information that appears on the company’s financial documents. With the implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act executives are required to know what is on financial statements and to

This was but one of many accounting scandals, but it was possibly the worst. To help prevent something like this from happened again, the Sarbanes Oxley Act was passed. This act greatly increased the accountability of auditing firms, and it also increased penalties for acts such as defrauding shareholders, as well as faking, destroying, or altering records (Jennings, 2015).

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passes in 2002 in response to a handful of large corporate scandals that occurred between the years 2000 to 2002, resulting in the losses of billions of dollars by investors. Enron, Worldcom and Tyco are probably the most well known companies that were involved in these scandals, but there were a number of other companies guilty of such things as well. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed as a way to crackdown on corporations by setting new and improved standards that all United States’ public companies and accounting firms were and are required to abide by. It also works to hold top level executives accountable for the company, and if fraudulent behaviors are discovered then the executives could find themselves in hot water. The punishments for such fraudulence could be as serious as 20 years jail time. (Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 2014). The primary motivation for the act was to prevent future scandals from happening, or at least, make it much more difficult for them to happen. The act was also passed largely to protect the people—the shareholders—from corporations, their executives, and their boards of directors. Critics tend to argue that the act is to complicated, and costs to much to abide by, leading to the United States losing its “competitive edge” in the global marketplace (Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 2014). The Sarbanes-Oxley act, like most things, has its pros and cons. It is costly; studies have shown that this act has cost companies millions of

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or SOX Act, was enacted on July 30, 2002. Since it was enacted that summer it has changed how the public business handle their accounting and auditing. The federal law was made coming off of a number of large corporations involved in scandals. For example a company like Enron was caught in accounting fraud in late 2001 when the company was using false financial statements. Once Enron was caught that had many lawsuits filed against them and had to file for bankruptcy. It was this scandal that played a big part in producing the Sarbanes-Oxley act in 2002.

The Sarbanes Oxley Act came to existence after numerous scandals on financial misappropriation and inaccurate accounting records. The nature of scandals made it clear there are possible measure that could be used to prevent future occurrence of financial scandals. And the existence and effectiveness of Sarbanes Oxley has caused

The development of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) was a result of public company scandals. The Enron and Worldcom scandals, for example, helped investor confidence in entities traded on the public markets weaken during 2001 and 2002. Congress was quick to respond to the political crisis and "enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which was signed into law by President Bush on July 30" (Edward Jones, 1), to restore investor confidence. In reference to SOX, penalties would be issued to non-ethical or non-law-abiding public companies and their executives, directors, auditors, attorneys, and securities analysts (1). SOX significantly transformed the procedures in which public companies handle internal

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) was enacted in July 30, 2002, by Congress to protect shareholders and the general public from fraudulent corporate practices and accounting errors and to maintain auditor independence.   In protecting the shareholders and the general public the SOX Act is intended to improve the transparency of the financial reporting.   Financial reports are to be certified by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) creating increased responsibility and independence with auditing by independent audit firms. In discussing the SOX Act, we will focus on how this act affects the CEOs; CFOs; outside independent audit firms; the advantages and a

This paper provides an in-depth evaluation of Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which is said to be promoted to produce change in the corporate environment, in general, by stressing issues of public accountability and disclosure in the financial operations of business. It explains how this is an Act that represents the government's and the Security and Exchange Commission's concern in promoting ethical standards in terms of financial disclosure in the corporate environment.