Cresent

The organizational structure of Phar-Mor was ineffective and lacked many control activities including: segregation of duties, authorization, documentary and IT controls. As a result, Phar-Mor’s president had a stronghold on certain upper level management and executives which gave him the opportunity to control the fraud and hide it from other members of the organization and supposedly Phar-Mor’s auditors, Coopers and Lybrand LLP.

The former CEO of DHBI, David Brooks ("DB"), misrepresented DHBI's financial statements, mislead the independent auditors in order to conceal his fraudulent transactions and he misappropriated DHBI's assets and funds for personal expenditures.

The one pattern within the data that appears to be inconsistent yet if the auditors had established an internal control systems would be Monus the founder moving so freely throughout every aspect of the company with no one checking his movements. From choosing what properties to purchase to purchasing supplies. In any company there should be segregation of duties. For example, the person making the deposits should not be the person writing the checks. Had there been stipulations made it would not have been so convenient to commit the

The conflict arise and the management felt the pressure because Eagleeye and the investors threatened them that they will sell all of their shares and large institutional will left the bank. The reason is they do not want the firm to spend too much financial capital into the growth plan. Their purpose for the bank is to become an ideal target for other companies to acquire so they can earn the profit from selling the bank.

If board of directors decides to rectify previous frauds, they would investigate into the event, take appropriate legal action against people involved and disclose previous frauds with the previous and current year financial statements. If they decide to cover-up their fraudulent practices; they may warn me to stay out of this business or threaten to dismiss me. Both decisions would have differing effects on external stakeholders.

AICPA Code of Professional Conduct principles prevents vises such as fraud that are experienced in accountancy field. Audit is the best measure of the effect of the fraud that are imposed to investors by accountants. The relationship of the investors and account holders are supposed to be affirmed through auditing to ensure accounting principles are upheld(Weirich, Pearson, & Churyk, 2010). Improper loss of the funds through propagation of the accountant officer should be treated as fraud and criminal activity that should lead to prosecution. Therefore, the paper seeks to relate two fraud cases that have been audited and presenting AICPA Code of

Firstly there is a significant Ethical and morale lapse in a share floated company when the CEO engages in related party transactions. The moral issues arise

On April 21, 2001, Lee Farkas, the former chairman of a private mortgage lending company, Taylor, Bean, & Whitaker (TBW), was convicted for his role in a more than $2.9 billion fraud scheme (Schoenberg, 2011). This action contributed to the failures of Colonial Bank, one of the 25 largest banks in the United States, and TBW, one of the largest privately held mortgage lending companies in the United States. According to court documents and evidence presented at the trial, Farkas and his co-conspirators engaged in a scheme that misappropriated more than $1.4 billion from Colonial Bank’s Mortgage Warehouse Lending division and

The auditing firm has been in engagement with the company throughout the period when the fraud was being committed. One of the common and clear indicators of possible fraud was the company’s cash flow statement. The company experienced positive growth in its profits from the year 1996 through to the year 1998. However, a close analysis of the cash flow statement shows that the company had experienced negative figures of cash flow from both operating and investing activities and positive cash flow from financing activities which would not sufficiently offset the negative cash flows from operating and investing. It is therefore evident

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 executives are accountable to the board of directors. Instead of protecting the investors, the board enticed the culture of financial fraud in the company for selfish gains. It failed in its duties in keeping the executives in check.

Fraudulent, erroneous, and illegal acts committed by a public company, usually at a managerial or executive level, have been a very serious problem for many years and have prompted development of strict and updated regulations, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, in an attempt to prevent these occurrences. Unfortunately, these new or updated regulations are not enough to prevent these acts from happening, thus not alleviating the auditors of their responsibility to detect fraud. Some methods that management and auditors can employ to prevent and detect fraud, errors, and illegal acts are: improving knowledge, improving skills,

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.

According to the internal inspection report of the Societe Generale, certain control was absented throughout a period of time. This absent of certain control indicated that a fraud is occurred and alerted the company about it. However, even though Societe Generale is able to identify the problem, the compliance inspector of the company only conducted a routine reviews and did not have a deep detail checking on issues. Besides, the compliance inspector did not asking for any additional information from Kerviel and simply accepted Kerviel’s claims without putting any effort to validate it. Due to this, its shows that the compliance inspector of the bank is failed to identify the cause of the problems occurred which caused by the lack of

The greatest opportunity for Minkow to commit fraud was ZZZZ Best’s lack of financial supervision. Lack of internal control facilitated manipulation of company’s assets and transactions. It gave the CFO the opportunity to falsify the documents and to create fictitious transactions. These transactions created formidable revenues on the company’s books and made it easy to borrow money from banks. The weak external audit was the other opportunity that allowed Minkow to commit fraud. The auditor was not familiar with the company and its related parties. In addition, the auditors placed too much trust in management produced documents and failed to verify key transactions. These two important reasons gave Minkow an opportunity to commit fraud.