Identifying Fraud Risks Increasing Auditor Liability

With different industry definitions and viewpoints, fraud can be a tough issue for audit committee members to grasp for oversight purposes. The legal obligations of audit committee members have intensified because their standard duty of care and loyalty to the entity has increased in light of management fraud activities.

Niedermeyer, and Presha Niedermeyer. They performed surveys using internal auditors of public companies and external auditors from large and small firms. The survey questioned how auditors made ethical decisions, and they also wanted to see how internal auditors answered versus how external auditors answered. The result of the surveys showed that there was no difference in decision- making between internal and external auditors in the aspect of how major the effects unethical decisions on victims would be. The only difference between auditors in this study was how they make decisions on what is right and what is wrong. It appears that auditors that work for the Big Four have a stronger sense to determine what is right or wrong as opposed to the other auditors working in large and small firms. The study suggests that each firm adopts policies and special training to combat these

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.

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,

Prior to Sarbanes Oxley act, auditing firms were self regulatory. It may happen several times that challenging the counts of the companies damage the relationship with the clients. The frauds of the companies cannot be detected easily. There are many risks associated with the auditing report since it will not be able to report the actual position of the companies. The Sarbanes Oxley act states that it shall be unlawful to contravenes the provisions of the commission because it is not in the public interest or it is unprotected for investors, for any other person to take any action to fraudulently influence, manipulate, coerce and mislead any independent person in the performance of preparing the audit report of the financial statements of any concern.

This case established that an auditor could be sued by a primary beneficiary for damages from negligence. A primary beneficiary is a party that has a direct benefit from the audit. Non-privity parties could also sue for gross negligence. This increased the auditor’s legal exposure to third parties. The SEC of 1934 reflected these changes and many others; one significant change was that auditor’s had a much higher litigation risk due to their new responsibility to third parties.

There were several large scandals in the beginning years of the 2000’s. The public had a lack of trust within the capital markets and investors who had invested their capital would soon find out that they had lost a substantial amount, as share prices decreased. Senator Paul Sarbanes and Representative Michael Oxley both came together and were part of creating legislation which would deter future scandals such as Enron, WorldCom, Tyco amongst other frauds that led the public lose trust in the markets- to never happen again. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 is comprised of 11 sections, and one of them is the creation of the (PCAOB) Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, PCAOB definition “The PCAOB is a nonprofit

“Outside auditors play a crucial role in our nation’s financial system. As the watchdogs of corporate accounting, they are supposed to protect investors” (Hilzenrath, 2010). The question is how effective are these outside auditors in protecting investors? When you think about the failures that have occurred: Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, Tyco, and Global crossing to name a few, one would really question the effectiveness of these outside auditors. As a result of these failures, Congress pass the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002. This act in turn created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) to police the outside auditors and ensures they are protecting the investors.

12-9: According to AU 240, auditors should exercise professional skepticism during the audit and discuss the risks of material misstatement due to fraud (Wells, 2013, p. 330). The auditor should also discuss the implications of the audit with the appropriate level of management. Finally, the auditor should obtain sufficient evidence to determine if material fraud exists and what the impact on the actual financial statements is (Wells, 2013, pp.

As laws and regulations continue to grow and become more complex, the need for forensic accountants is sure to continue growing as well. An example of how regulations have grown (mirroring the demand for forensic accountants) can be seen by comparing the scope and length of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, at 66 pages, to the 849 page Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection act of 2009.(Tucker, 2011) It is the environment created by such complex regulations and oversight committees that has hedged the need for accounting experts who can help demonstrate both the effects of individual companies on overall markets, as well as the opposite effects of market-happenings on individual firms. This complicated data, made comprehendible by a talented and effective forensic accountant, can serve as the determining factor in a case. Ultimately, this allows for

Businesses, investors, creditors rely on accounting ethics. The accounting profession requires honesty, consistency with industry standards, and compliance with laws and regulations. The ethics increase the responsibility and integrity of accounting professionals, and public trust. The ethical requirements influence the management behavior and decision-making. The financial scandal of Enron and Arthur Anderson demonstrates the failure of fundamental ethical framework, such as off-balance sheet transactions, misrepresentation of financial statements, inaccurate disclosure, manipulations with earnings, etc. The confronted accounting profession and concern for ethics in businesses forced regulators to revise the conceptual framework of accounting processes.

• Directing appropriate attention to the different areas of the audit such as assessing materiality, so that when the detailed audit plan is prepared, audit procedures can be directed towards the material amounts.

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,

Lindberg and Beck (2002) claim that auditor independence is hailed as the “cornerstone” in the accounting profession as it is the core reason as to why the public trusts their professional opinion. However, since 2000, many accounting fraud scandals have negatively impacted public opinion on the legitimacy of the audit profession and, if in fact, its independence is uninfluenced by other parties. One of the scandals being the sudden collapse of Enron, given that a few months prior its bankruptcy its auditors Arthur Andersen, which was one of the five largest audit and accounting firms, claimed that Enron was financially healthy, but in fact they were paid off

Cable provider Adelphia was one of the major accounting scandals of the early 2000s that led to the creation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. A key provision of the Act was to create a stronger ethical climate in the auditing profession, a consequence of the apparent role that auditors played in some of the scandals. SOX mandated that auditors cannot audit the same companies for which they provide consulting services, as this link was perceived to result in audit teams being pressured to perform lax audits in order to secure more consulting business from the clients. There were other provisions in SOX that increased the regulatory burden on the auditing profession in response to lax auditing practices in scandals like Adelphia (McConnell & Banks, 2003). This paper will address the Adelphia scandal as it relates to the auditors, and the deontological ethics of the situation.