Roslyn school district case

1381 WordsOct 13, 20136 Pages
Roslyn School District Case 1) The primary individuals involved the Roslyn fraud were former assistant superintendent for business and finance Pamela Gluckin and Former superintendent Frank Tassone. Also the former accounting clerk Debra Rigano was charged with the fraud too. 2) Frank A. Tassone; the former business manager, Pamela Gluckin; and an accounting clerk, Debra Rigano, who is a niece of Ms. Gluckin embezzled money in a scheme in which Dr. Tassone and Ms. Gluckin and nine of their family members and friends charged $5.9 million for personal items and cash advances on 74 personal credit cards. Then Ms. Gluckin and Dr. Tassone used district checks to pay those bills. The audit found that Dr. Tassone and…show more content…
Two of the three partners of the firm that performed the audit for the district had 55% ownership in the company that sold the district its financial management software “finance manager”. The partners’ role as vendors violated the general standard of independence under generally accepted government auditing standards. Also the auditors received a commission from the sale of another software called “student manager” and receiving commissions is prohibited by the AICPA. Also there were fundamental problems with their audit planning and efforts to test financial records. The CPA firm work that was so flawed and so far below professional standards that it failed to identify the millions that were stolen. 5) No they did not comply with GAAS because the independent auditor had conflicts of interest. Two of the three partners of the firm that performed the audit for the district had 55% ownership in the company that sold the district its financial management software “finance manager”. The partners’ role as vendors violated the general standard of independence under generally accepted government auditing standards. Also the auditors received a commission from the sale of another software called “student manager” and receiving commissions is prohibited by the AICPA. 6) The CPA firm accounting system was flawed and this was shown when the CPA firm failed to test the system. This system was sold to district by the CPA firm performing their audit. It
Open Document