Public accountants duty to provide due professional care in all their contractual obligations

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

An implicit theme of this case that I want students to recognize is the contrast between the persistent and vigorous efforts of David Sokol to “get to the bottom” of the suspicious items he uncovered in JWP’s accounting records versus what Judge William Conner referred to as the “spinelessness” of JWP’s auditors. The JWP audits were similar to most problem audits in that the auditors encountered numerous red flags and questionable entries in the client’s accounting records but, for whatever reason, apparently failed to thoroughly investigate those items. On the other hand, Sokol refused to be deterred in his investigation of the troubling accounting issues that he discovered. The relationships that existed between members of JWP’s accounting staff and the Ernst & Young audit team apparently influenced the outcome of the JWP audits. Of course, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Arthur Anderson Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) was established in 1913 into the Accounting industry. They offered tax, consulting, and, auditing services to large corporations everywhere. Their headquarters were located in Chicago, Illinois and eventually had over 85,000 employees in 84 different countries (Collins, 2016). By the 1990’s Arthur Andersen had become one of the largest accounting firms, and was recognized as one of the “big five.” Along with being one of the largest accounting firms Arthur Andersen was also one of the most reputable. There were many factors that distinguished Arthur Andersen from other accounting firms, and the most notable were the honesty and integrity Arthur Andersen had established for the company (Moore & Crampton, 2000). Andersen set high standards which in turn resulted in the growth of their prestige. Many companies came to Arthur Andersen because of the trust it had established in the public and in the accounting Industry. One of the ways Arthur Andersen established their reputation was through their organizational structure and the culture of the company.

Grant Thornton should be held liable for its reckless negligence because it ultimately prolonged Keystone bank’s ability to continue to partake in fraudulent activities. If the accounting firm would have held itself to GAAS, generally accepted as the minimum standard of professional conduct in performing an audit, Thornton would have known to exercise “heightened skepticism” during this high risk of fraud. Secondly, GAAS required written confirmations from third parties servicing assets in regards to a bank’s balance sheet. Not only did Thornton fail to obtain this written requirement, it also recklessly relied on an oral statement. GAAS also required in a high risk audit that monthly remittances of interest income on assets being serviced by

Although this practice was not fraudulent, the plaintiffs insisted that Campbell had a responsibility to record a reserve or allowance in anticipation of substantial customer returns likely to result from theses “sales.” Despite the fact that a large percentage of product sold under guaranteed sales contracts was returned, the company’s accounting staff apparently never recorded appropriate reserves for those sales returns. The plaintiffs charged that PwC must have known about Campbell’s bogus sales, but

Most states use that a duty to care belongs to “anyone or limited foreseeable class of persons whom the CPA knows will be relying on the CPA’s work.” In this case Tricontinental could be relying on PwC’s work, however, Tricontinental is the company been bought. In most cases lenders and investors are those that a CPA would have a duty to care towards. During the negotiations Tricontinental is neither a lender nor an investor. The investor in this case is Anicom for purchasing Tricontinental and there is no lender. Therefore, a majority of states would rule that Tricontinental may not sue for negligent misrepresentation. However, a minority of states uses an Ultramares decision in which: “limits CPA liability more narrowly to persons in privity of contract with CPA (client) and intended third party beneficiaries. In this situation a third party could be a bank that is going to get a loan as the result of

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.

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

Our group, “The Super Six” focussed our research on the problem of ethics and actuarial science. As Sholom Feldblum states “The actuary has a dual role: an objective professional providing guidance on insurance issues and a business manager promoting the goals of an insurance company” (Sholom Feldblum, pg.1). The purpose of our research was to determine the most common ethical problems an actuary faces, and the most appropriate methods to solve these problems. Solutions were necessary so that our stakeholders, current and prospective actuaries, will have more guidance when faced with these dilemmas.

a. I think Bobson & Lleyton will be liable to Asheville Furniture for the purposeful overstatement of inventory on Sleep Time Beds’ books. B&L’s managing partner violated AICPA code of professional Conduct by colluding with its clients to inflate its inventory. He rendered himself independent during the engagement, because he possibly took bribe from the management and agreed to be part of the corporation. The accounting firm was also liable becasue the managing partner actively participated in fraud. The overstatement in the financials could directly cause damage for Asheville Furniture, who is the user of the audit report prepared by B&L.

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

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

Imagine trusting your hard-earned money like your retirement savings to a financial adviser or Certified Public Accountants (CPA) only to lose it all in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme. In today’s world of business many organizations, financial planners and accountants are in the news due to the financial ethical breaches that have affected their customers, employees, and the general public. A CPA has to be responsible for their audits and take any punishments as a result of their mistakes, incompetence or illegal actions. CPAs are expected to have integrity in their work,

Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No. 5, “Recognition and Measurement in Financial Statements of Business Enterprises,” established a two-part revenue recognition rule for accountants to follow in deciding when to record revenues. Before revenue is recognized (recorded) in an entity’s accounting records, it should be both realized and earned, according to the following excerpt from SFAC No. 5.

With professions having this tremendous knowledge regarding a company’s financial standing and not being able to disclose the information to the public it can create major investment errors. With these restrictions in place by the AICPA the accountants and auditors “… in a position of having to choose between earning a livelihood or making a proper ethical choice” (Synder, 2011).