Accounting Frauds: ZZZZ Best Company, Inc

LDDS started with about $650,000 in capital but soon accumulated $1.5 million in debt since it

There were two external auditors mentioned in the case that dealt with ZZZZ Best. The first was not a firm that was included in the Big Eight accounting firms at the time. George Greenspan was the sole practitioner who performed the first full-scope independent audit for ZZZZ Best. Greenspan insisted that he had properly audited Minkow’s company, and testified that while planning the audit he had performed various analytical procedures to identify unusual relationships in ZZZZ Best’s financial data. Greenspan’s procedures reportedly included comparing ZZZZ Best’s key financial ratios with its industry norms. Greenspan identifies “unusual relationships” but does not go into detail in order to explain these unusual relationships. This shows that Greenspan did not show enough professional skepticism while conducting the audit and just blew off these unusual relationships. Also Greenspan testified that he had obtained and reviewed copies of all key documents that pertained to the false insurance restoration contracts. It would have been hard for Greenspan to uncover the fraud through the contract paperwork because Minkow and Morze went through such great detail in creating false documents in order to cover the false contracts, but finer details were overlooked by Greenspan. A journalist found one of these finer details which caused the domino effect leading to the destruction of ZZZZ Best. This shows that the first auditor,

Without a question the BOD should have placed a high degree of reliance on Andersen, which at the time was one of the most prestigious worldwide accounting firms. The auditors should have known the kind of accounting taking place in Enron. In my opinion, Andersen knew, at least to some extent, the company’s financial condition. However, Enron was already too deep under water that blowing the whistle so late would have created problems for Andersen as well. According to the case, on 02/05/01, Andersen held internal meeting during which it addressed the company’s accounting from and oversight of the LJM partnership. Andersen never discussed these concerns with the Audit and Compliance Committee. Although the BOD has its faults, it should have been able to rely on Andersen’s work.

1. There are numerous differences between performing a review and actual audit on the financial statements, but the major one is that the review does not contemplate obtaining an understanding of internal control structure. Also, a review does not assess control risk, tests of accounting records and responses to inquiries by obtaining corroborating evidence through inspection, observation or any other audit procedure. It can point out significant matters of the financial statements but does not provide assurance of their accuracy. The issue with ZZZZ Best case is that the auditors review was not sufficient enough to review any misstatements on the financial statements. Ernst & Whinney never questioned the internal control, reviewed

It is possible for an auditor to come to an improper conclusion because documents, like invoices, could be easily falsified if management originally handles them or if the auditor receives them from management, like in the case of ZZZZ Best and Minkow. The auditor must always confirm payments directly with the third party.

Did the confidentiality agreement that Minkow required Ernst and Whitney to sign improperly limit the scope of the ZZZZ Best audit? Why or why not? Discuss general circumstances under which confidentiality concerns on the part of a client may properly affect audit planning decisions. At what point do client imposed audit scope limitations affect the type of audit opinion issued?

This paper explores the ZZZZ Best Company which was begun by a 16 year old individual who was able to pull the wool over the eyes of many customers, investors and auditors. This paper will define the difference between review and audit when it comes to financial reports, comments on the procedures provided with regard to the management assertion of occurrence, verification of payments for jobs and how they can lead auditors to improper conclusion, the purpose of predecessor-successor auditor communications, as well as whom needs to initiate the communication and information that needs to be obtained. The paper also addresses the limitations of the confidentiality agreement and how and when

Ernst & Whinney audit firm suffered tremendously from the backlash of ZZZZ Best’s case. One of the issues stemming from ZZZZ Best’s case is the difference between a review and an audit as evidence by civil suit filed by a California bank against the firm. The bank claimed that its decision to grant ZZZZ Best’s loan was based on the opinion of Ernst & Whinney review of ZZZZ Best’s financial statements period ending July 31, 1986. The case was ruled in favor of Ernst & Whinney as the audit firm had expressly stated in their report that it was not issuing an opinion and the bank should not have rely heavily on the review report. Also, ZZZZ Best was a public company at the time, a review of its

Phar-Mor was known as one of the major discount chain retailers in the late 1980’s - early 1990’s. It was founded by Mickey Monus, a gambler in nature, who with the help of senior management was “cooking the books” for years to cover up his loses. The reason why senior management agreed to do this fraud is the belief in unique ability of their leader to fix everything later on. This case is known as one of the biggest accounting frauds in the corporate history of the U.S. This paper will analyze who was affected by this fraud, the motives behind it and what systems of control failed to prevent it.

The video “Cooking the Books” discussed the ZZZZ Best case of fraud, it tells how and why fraud was perpetrated by Barry Minkow and why it was undetected for so long. According to the video, ZZZZ Best was founded by Barry Minkow in 1982; when he was sixteen years old, it started as a carpet cleaning company. But, due to high competition in the industry, low entry barriers, and bad internal control, this young entrepreneur started to have cash flow problems, thus creating a shortage of working capital. As a result of the financial pressure, he started to commit fraud by creating false accounts receivable and sales, false documents (using photocopies of real

The WMI accounting fraud case described a financial fraud committed by senior management of WMI, with the help of Arthur Andersen the external auditors. The case depicts the effort of several years to inflate profits at WMI, employing aggressive accounting practices which enabled the WMI to conceal $1.7 billion in form of expenses (Riley and Rezaee, 12). By eliminating or deferring expenses, WMI managed to meet earnings targets and improve

Phar-Mor Inc. fell prey to greed from the top. Unfortunately, the auditing firm assisted the organization with the conspiracy to defraud the users of financial reporting, the government, and the stakeholders. The chief officers used the funds for personal usage and appropriated funds to functions that were not related to the organization business. The financial statements were riddled with material misstatements and fraud acts of theft were blatant. For example, the senior financial officers including the CEO grossly over stated inventory to hide losses.

Additional steps should have been taken by the auditors when they received the smudged fax copy printed on the Bank of America letterhead. As mentioned before, the evaluation of the evidence obtained is as important as requesting it. The firm did not confirm the forged documents with the bank; for this reason, the evidence remained unreliable and the forgery wasn’t revealed until later. Auditors should have been concerned with knowing where and whom the confirmation letters came from. Was the initial confirmation request mailed directly by Grant Thorton SpA or by Parmalat or was it obtained directly from the bank? Auditors should be aware that confirmations that are sent through fax are much less reliable than confirmations sent by mail. Their duty was to find out if the correct process was altered in any way.

Main character in this fraud is Mr. Dennis Kozlowski, the CEO of Tyco. He misappropriated around $270 million through unauthorized loans, sale of Tyco securities and undisclosed compensation. In order to conceal these amounts, the compensation was incorrectly offset against unrelated gains. This led to violation of GAAP and misrepresented financial statements. For example, $44.6 million of bonuses were offset against gain from IPO of one of Tyco’s subsidiaries. They have also netted the bonuses with gain on disposal of business and gain on sale of common stock. According to ASC 718 Compensation, these and other bonuses should have been disclosed in operating earnings and should have decreased operating income. However, since they were offset against one-time gains, they did not have any impact on operating income. This “hiding” of compensation occurred on several occasions – the expenses were also netted against gain on sale

There were many issues in this case but one of the main issues that stood out was the fact that Andersen there was a conflict of interest because Andersen was the auditor and consultant for Enron. There are positive attributes when auditing and consulting at the same time for a client such as building a relationship with the client and promotes business; allows the auditor to become familiar with the clients’ business environment, and reduces the overall cost of the client. However, when a firm audits and consults for their client, the audit/consulting firm works so closely to the client that it makes ethical decisions very difficult to make and the auditors lose objectivity and become partial due to the conflict of interest.