Rogue Trader

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 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

Fraudulent financial reporting is one form of corporate corruption and may involve the manipulation of the documents used to record accounting transactions, the misrepresentation of accounting events or transactions, or the intentional misapplication of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) (Crumbley, Heitger, and Smith, 2013). Examples of fraudulent schemes befitting of this category abound and usually involve financial statement items that have been misclassified, omitted, overstated, undervalued, or prematurely recognized. One case involving CEO Bill Smith of Moonstay

vii. Does the article fit into an existing theoretical framework? In other words, what theory (ies) does the article address that was discussed

Title III, section 302. “Corporate Responsibility for Financial Reports” requires that all financial statements be examined for authenticity by the leading officers. Once examined and such a statement of authenticity is made that puts all liability of fraud, when caught, onto those individuals. In this this case it would have been Monus and Finn who would have been brought up on these charges. In the case of Phar-Mor, the leading officers were the ones conducting the fraud so their review of their own fraud would not have prevent them from continuing but it may deter them due to them being held fully liable.

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

Global Crossing came to its ascent as an organization during the height of the dot.com bubble, when oversight over technology companies was fairly lax, given the lack of understanding of the

5.6.1 There are several factors that can contribute to fraudulent activity. Firstly, the presence of the motivation for an employee to commit fraudulent action, such as being under financial pressure, having unmanageable debt or an addiction. Secondly, an opportunity to carry out fraudulent activities, such as poor internal controls implementation or wrong segregation of duties, coupled with a lack of physical security measures like CCTV cameras, locked money tins and boxes. Low ethical and moral standards of managers can lead to employees following the same pattern. Also, a lack of effective communication within the organisation, so that employees do not feel appreciated, or that their work is not valued. Common types of fraud are: illegal

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,

2) Much of Crazy Eddie’s fraud can be attributed to the overstatement of inventory and the understatement on accounts payable, not to mention the vast number of executives who were involved in the scheme. Specific audit procedures, if performed, could have led to the detection of the following accounting irregularities:

Based on the case given, the bank controllers were only instructed to monitor the net trading positions, but not the Dalta One traders’ gross exposure. The bank controllers did not inform their supervisors when they had noticed that Kerviel’s transactions were irregularities which involved an abnormally high amounts in his transactions as that was not the specifically part of their job. Thus, Kerviel able to use his knowledge of the company control procedures to hide his fake trades with his false documents and emails.

You recently graduated and just started employment at the New York office of one of the Big Four

The illegal construction of the Bernie Madoff securities pyramid scheme grew to preposterous proportions from legal, auditing, and regulatory weaknesses of the Securities Exchange Commission, the designated regulatory body of the U.S. financial markets. The required expertise, authority, and relevant penalties needed to deter management from committing ethical breaches lacked substance in the case study of BMIS (Crews 11). Even after the wake of the Enron and WorldCom scandals that occurred in the early 2000s, the SEC unexplainably revoked provisions created to help avoid fraud. The provision the SEC revoked specifically mandated firms structured like Madoff’s to be audited by accounting firms registered and audited by the Board. By revoking the provision, BMIS was allowed to continue its Ponzi scheme for another half a decade with the aid of utilizing an unregistered, small accounting firm called Freihling & Horowitz (“Madoff’s Jenga”

Under financial pressure, Minkow started to commit fraud. He forged credit card applications, staged theft, used bogus financial statements, and used his networking skills to entice wealthy investors. The most serious fraud he made was inflating the value of the company’s insurance restoration contracts (Knapp, 2006).

Control Activities is another area that was grossly overlooked in “Rogue Trader”. Firstly, Barings board members delegated auditing tasks to staff that didn't follow through with the entire process. This can be seen in the