Campbell Soup Compan Audit

In this case, there are several conspirators who is involved in the fraud receiving punishment from either SEC or federal government. Robert Levin, the AMRE executive and major stockholder, and Dennie D.Brown, the company’s chief accounting officer, were subject to the punishment in the form of a huge amount of fine by the SEC and the federal government. This punishment came from reasons. After AMRE going public, the company have the obligation to publish its financial reports but its performance did not meet expectation. The investigation by SEC shows that Robert took the first step of this scam, fearing the sharp drop of AMRE’s stock price because of the poor performance of company. He abetted Brown, to practice three main schemes to present a false appearance of profitable and pleasant financial reports. Firstly, they instructed Walter W.Richardson, the company’s vice president of data processing, to enter fictitious unset leads in the lead bank and they originally deferred the advertising cost mutiplying “cost per lead” and “unset leads” amount, so that they deferred a portion of its advertising costs in an asset account. The capitalizing of advertising expenses allowed them to inflate the net income for the first quarter of fiscal 1988. Secondly, at the end of the third and fourth quarters of fiscal 1988, they added fictitious inventory to AMRE’s ending inventory records, and prepared bogus inventory count sheets for the auditors. Thirdly, they overstated the percentage

The Enron and WorldCom scandals were arguably the incidents that permanently changed the procedures for accounting controls. In response to these incidents, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) of 2002 was passed. Once the knowledge of these scandals was made public, a number of subsequent accounting scandals were discovered in public companies such as Tyco International, HealthSouth, and American Insurance Group. In addition, a then-employee-owned company, Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. (dba PBS&J, now known as “Atkins North America, Inc.”), was also hit by a similar accounting scandal. Henceforth, a case study of PBS&J is presented where we will examine the fraudulent transactions that

Our project team analyzed the Fraud and Illegal Acts Case (True blood Case Studies- Case 08-9), which involves a questionable sales transaction made between Jersey Johnnie’s Surfboard, an SEC registrant, and Mr. Sinaloa, an independent sales representative of the company. As a simplified overview of the case, an external audit firm was hired on to perform a year-end audit of Jersey Johnnie’s Surfboards, Inc. Towards the end of the audit, the engagement partner notified the auditors that there could be a possibility of fraud and illegal acts made by the company.

Megan’s suggestion can seriously influence the accuracy of the audit report. There may be material misstatements that go unnoticed by the auditors that otherwise would have been caught have they not skipped steps. In doing this, the auditors may issue an opinion not suitable for the company’s financials.

2 Managing fraud risk: The audit committee perspective Fraud in a fi nancial statement audit

The Goodner Brothers, Inc. audit case is based off the story of two men who have been friends since their childhood: Woody Robinson and Al Hunt. Now as adults, Mr. Hunt works for an auto supply store while Mr. Robinson works for Goodner Brothers, Inc., a tire wholesaler in Huntington, West Virginia. In the Goodner case, internal auditors were conducting their annual inventory counts of Goodner Brothers, Inc. and determined that their numbers were lower than the book inventory numbers by $143,000. As it would with any company, the misstatement of inventory raised red flags forcing the company to contact their independent audit firm to investigate the inventory shortage. The

al, 2012, p. 214). Therefore, a material misstatement may not be detected during the audit. In addition, the audit may not detect errors under the materiality level, whether resulting from error, fraud, or misappropriation of assets. Anderson, Olds, and Watershed may decline to express an opinion or issue a report if the firm is unable to complete the audit for any reason.

The audit team then assessed the business risk for the client. Smackey’s Dog Foods Inc did not reach their targets. In this case, the audit team successfully assessed the risk of material misstatements that currently exist. The increasing amounts of discarded food from the Smackey’s Best Boy Gourmet boutique is a prime example of the material misstatements.

Brewster Heights Packing, the buyer entered a contract with the seller for the purchase of apple packing machinery. The district court entered judg-ment in favor of the seller on its breach of contract claim. On appeal, the court af-firmed. The buyer contended that both it and the seller intended at the time of their con-tract to be bound by their written agreement and to prior oral discussions. The buyer contended that the largest portion of its damages stemmed from the loss of an orally bargained-for system. The court held that a clause in the parties’ contract prohibited the inclusion of any understandings or representations not expressly included in the con-tract. It appeared that the buyer intended to use the parol evidence not to explain or to supplement the contract, but rather to contradict the limitation of warranties contained in the contract. The court concluded that the buyer’s counterclaims of fraud and viola-tion of the Washington Consumer Protection Act failed because they did not give rise to the independent tort of fraud and there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate an ef-fect on other consumers or a real and substantial potential for repetition of unfair con-duct.

The Great Western Bank of San Diego placed an order of 12 special purpose accounting machines with the Data Max Corporation of Cincinnati, OH. Great Western Bank and Data Max, both agreed to a firm-fixed price of $9,500 per unit and FOB the shipping point. The purchasing manager of the bank designated a particular carrier (yellow freight) and Data Max returned the signed acknowledgement without making any changes to the terms and conditions.

with the third party, LOI believes that there is a 90% probability that the third

This memo is regarding Hamilton Corporation and the fraud that occurred. When people make decisions they don’t always do it with the right mindset. There are limitations in our judgment processes and we can identify methods to mitigate bias and improve judgment (KPMG Judgment Framework). The four common tendencies that cause limitations in our judgment processes are, availability, confirmation, overconfidence, and anchoring. In this memo I will explain each of the four tendencies, talk about which tendency I believe to have manifested in the Hamilton case, clarify issues relating to auditing the warranty reserve and describe the alternatives that should be considered in auditing the warranty reserve, and finally provide factors that

Potential for misstatement & fraud: Compliance with the established procedures and controls were found to be ineffective. The fraud reporting process, technically put in place does not serve its intended purpose. The ineffective control environment has created an attitude and tone across the company where errors and inappropriate behavior may be seen as acceptable, thus creating opportunity for concealing fraud and potential misstatements.

The chief executive of the company was closely working with the vendors whose confirmations were vital in the auditing work and hence they could have submitted false confirmations. The auditing firm established a national risk management program for its clients and so national reviews were done to identify the high risk items in the financial statement. The vendor allowances were particularly high but they were not documented. As such, the auditors were supposed to demand for the documentations and compare them with the real figures. It is however noted that most of the documentations received were non-standard and this could have led to a different audit report given that vendor allowances were earlier identified as a high risk area. Inventory management was found to be poor especially in the allowances for inventory reserves. The audit firm was therefore obliged to carry out a thorough evaluation of the inventory reserves and determine whether it was reasonable. The valuation was also supposed to include all classes of inventory but for the case of the company, the evaluation excluded instances where no sales had been made. Hence, this evaluation could not accurately represent the position of the inventory reserve in the company. (Waters,2003)

The last deficiency is that the engagement team did not take any action even after another partner