Fraud Cases: Violations of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (Gaap)

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

Unfortunately, all those efforts have not been vindicated because of the following reasons: Accounting did not cause the recent corporate scandals such as Enron and WorldCom. Unreliable financial statements were the results of management decisions, fraudulent or otherwise. To blame management’s misdeeds on fraudulent financial statements casts accountants as the scapegoats and misses the real issue. Reliable financial reports rely to a certain extent on effective internal controls, but effective internal controls rely to a large extent on a reliable management system coupled with strong corporate governance. when management deliberately or even unlawfully manipulates business processes in order to achieve desirable financial goals and present untruthful financial reports to the public, accounting systems are abused and victims rather than perpetrators.

Prior to the creation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002, “a number of high profile accounting frauds and misstatements, some of unprecedented scope and scale, dominated the headlines” (Kulzick, 2008). According to Kulzick, one out of every ten public companies had restated earnings during the last five years and companies such as Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, Tyco, Global Crossing, and Arthur Anderson were dominating the headlines with financial discrepancies resulting from poor oversight that were contributing to massive losses in the stock market. In my opinion, all fiscally responsible organizations should want to pull best practices from Sarbanes-Oxley to ensure their reporting is accurate, consistent, appropriate, complete, and understandable regardless of if they are requirements or not. This can be accomplished by ensuring the CEO and CFO are certifying the accuracy of all financial information and internal controls before it’s published for public

FASB. (2014). _Summary of statement no. 144._ Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets (Issued 8/01). Retrieved May 26, 2014 from ht

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

The act is an exhaustive piece of legislation that contains eleven major section and some of the most important titles outline requirements on auditor independence, analyst conflict of interests, corporate responsibility, enhanced financial disclosures, internal controls assessment, and corporate fraud accountability (Bainbridge, 2007). One of the main benefits of the legislation is to establish auditor independence requirements and rules for the prevention of conflicts of interest in particular by prohibiting auditing firms from offering other services. Prior to Sarbanes–Oxley, the auditing professionals were self-regulated and the decisions that controlled the industry, such as violation of ethical standards, were made largely by auditors themselves (Verschoor, 2012). In order to prevent conflict of interests, the Sarbanes–Oxley Act grants the PCAOB authority to oversee and regulate auditing firms, conduct investigations, and impose disciplinary sanctions against accounting firms (McDonough, 2004). Another provision of the Act is requiring senior executives to be personally accountable and responsible for the financial information reports by certifying that the information is correct.(Welch, 2006). A byproduct of the law implementation is a significant quality improvement on accounting practices;

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act has many provisions. A few of the major provisions include the creation of the Public Company Oversight Board (PCAOB), Section 201, 203, 204, 302, 404, 809, 902, and 906. The PCAOB was the first true oversight of the accounting industry. It oversees and creates regulations, and it will monitor and investigate audits and auditors of public companies. The PCAOB has the authority to sanction firms and individuals for violations of laws, regulations, and rules. Section 302 requires the CEO and CFO to certify that they reviewed the financial statements, and that they are presented fairly. Section 404 requires management to state whether internal control procedures are adequate and effective, and requires an auditor to attest to the accuracy of the statement. Section 902 states that “It is a crime for any person to corruptly alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal any document with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official

There used to be a time in the United States when there were no regulations in place to protect the public from corporate greed and deceit. Publically traded companies used the auditors they had on retainer to audit their financial statements. There was no reason to believe that such large corporations would allow their share holders to fall. That fairytale came to an end with the discovery of the Enron and WorldCom scandals. These nightmares made the public “wake up” and realize that nothing was required of these companies to prove their statements or protect their shareholders. Regulation was

The swath of change brought about by Sarbanes-Oxley is wide and deep. The primary changes resulted in the creation of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the assessment of personal liability to auditors, executives and board members and creation of the Section 404. That section refers to required internal control procedures, which did not exist before Sarbanes-Oxley. Public companies are now required to include an internal control report with their annual audit. The oversight board is responsible for monitoring public accounting companies, and works with the SEC. Based on size, accounting forms undergo reviews every one to three years. In addition to the board reviews, public accounting firms now carry personal liability for their

Internal controls represent an organization’s processes and procedures used to meet its goals and objectives and serve as a defense in safeguarding assets and preventing and detecting errors, fraud, and abuse. Effective internal controls provide reasonable assurance that an organization’s objectives are achieved through (1) reliable financial reporting, (2) compliance with laws and regulations, and (3) effective and efficient operations. The passing of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as well as the numerous corporate frauds and bankruptcies over the past decade—including some

After major corporate and accounting scandals like those that affected Tyco, Worldcom and Enron the Federal government passed a law known as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 also known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act. This law was passed in hopes of thwarting illegal and misleading acts by financial reporters and putting a stop to the decline of public trust in accounting and reporting practices. Two important topics covered in Sarbanes-Oxley are auditor independence and the reporting and assessment of internal controls under section 404.

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,

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

These changes were outlined in the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). SOX completely revolutionized financial reporting, requiring senior management of firms to sign off on each financial statement that the company issues. It also stipulated that wrongful doing can result in not only termination but also imprisonment. SOX amplified the requirement for companies, requiring firms to maintain proper levels of internal controls when it comes to operating activities. SOX also established the creation of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) which implemented stricter auditing standards for public accounting firms. Not only were accounting firms required to consider internal controls, but they were also required report any significant deficiency directly to the board of directors. SOX stressed the importance of internal controls, and within internal controls it established the need for segregation of duties. Since this time, there have been many additions to accounting policies regards segregations of duties, and many functions of the business process dedicated to it.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) was enacted into law in 2002 in the wake of corporation financial reporting scandals involving large publicly held companies. SOX instituted new strict financial regulations with the intent of improving accounting practices and protecting investors from corporate misconduct. SOX requires corporate executives to vouch for the accuracy of financial statements, and to institute and monitor effective internal controls over financial reporting. The cost of implementing an effective internal control structure are onerous, and SOX inflicts opportunity costs upon an enterprise as executives have