The Carolina Wilderness Outfitters Is A Retailer For Outdoor Enthusiasts

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 company’s revenues were not growing fast enough to meet these targets, so defendants instead resorted to improperly eliminating and deferring current period expenses to inflate earnings. They employed a multitude of imp roper accounting practices to achieve this objective. Among other things; the complaint charges that defendants:

1)Which “management assertions” were relevant to Paragon’s construction projects? Describe an audit procedure that Arthur Anderson could have employed to corroborate that assertion for each.

The Molex Corporation is an electronic connector manufacturing firm, which is based in Illinois. This company is facing a financial reporting problem in which the financial statements were overstated. Joe King ,the CEO of the company, was appointed in July of 2001, and was responsible for managing and inventory control, among other very important duties. Diane Bullock was hired in 2003, to replace the previous CFO. Both Bullock and King were being accused of what? by the external auditors, Deloitte & Touche, for not disclosing an 8 million pre-tax inventory valuation error.

Our project team analyzed the Fraud and Illegal Acts Case (True blood Case Studies- Case 08-9), which involves a questionable sales transaction made between Jersey Johnnie’s Surfboard, an SEC registrant, and Mr. Sinaloa, an independent sales representative of the company. As a simplified overview of the case, an external audit firm was hired on to perform a year-end audit of Jersey Johnnie’s Surfboards, Inc. Towards the end of the audit, the engagement partner notified the auditors that there could be a possibility of fraud and illegal acts made by the company.

ETHICAL ISSUE STATEMENT: Did Burlington allow one individual, Marvin Brown, to make an unethical business decision to retaliate against employee Sheila White?

4.) Employee Compliance to the Code: The entire staff is expected to be compliant to the rules and regulations set forth by Company X. Reported accounts of non-compliance will lead to an internal investigation of both the accuser as well as the accused; disciplinary action will necessarily follow if company rules and regulations have not been adhered to or improperly dismissed. Granted that there are many different situations that could arise in which one would believe unethical behavior or misconduct transpired; therefore, it is suggested that first the issue in question is evaluated before presenting to one’s direct

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

The Goodner Brothers, Inc. audit case is based off the story of two men who have been friends since their childhood: Woody Robinson and Al Hunt. Now as adults, Mr. Hunt works for an auto supply store while Mr. Robinson works for Goodner Brothers, Inc., a tire wholesaler in Huntington, West Virginia. In the Goodner case, internal auditors were conducting their annual inventory counts of Goodner Brothers, Inc. and determined that their numbers were lower than the book inventory numbers by $143,000. As it would with any company, the misstatement of inventory raised red flags forcing the company to contact their independent audit firm to investigate the inventory shortage. The

“In my opinion, the Case would be improved by including the following summary” An American agriculture of the nineteenth century Cyrus McCormick, invented a company that produced farming equipment called McCormick Harvesting Machine Company. In 1902 his son Cyrus McCormick II merged the company with three competitors renaming it the International Harvester Company. By the late 1980’s the company had moved from producing farming equipment to manufacturing automotive products, trucks, and school buses. In the late 1980’s International Harvester company was renamed Navistar International Corporation. Over the years NIC changed and one of the most dramatic changes was the relationship with its longtime auditor Deloitte. (Knapp, 2015)

In the case study Carolina Wilderness Outfitters, Sue Ramos the head of internal auditing, launched an investigation based on improper termination, which turned up a new allegation of possible accounting irregularities and potential fraud.

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

|Review Audit Committee meeting on October 18, 2007 and draft an appropriate engagement letter. |4 |

Ashley Johnson is the sole owner of Johnson Real Estate, hereby referred to as “JRE”, which is a sole proprietorship (LLC) that lists and sells real estate in West Virginia. Ashley’s husband James is the president of JRE and is the day to day operator. Besides James, there are two employees: office manager Joan Rogers and receptionist Doris Chambers. The realtors are contracted sub-agents that personally collect commission checks at the end of each month. These realtors receive 65% of the commission granted to the broker, the rest is deposited into JRE’s checking account. Ashley noticed discrepancies in the commission receipts from closings and the actual bank deposits in the year of 20X9. The previous year there were no problems. JRE has not been audited for the past three years due to rapid growth. Ashley filed a report with the local prosecutor, a family friend, and requested a thorough investigation, which resulted in the prosecutor’s office contracting an accounting firm to complete the financial examination. The prosecutor’s office assigned special agents Thomas and Longworth to the case. The prosecutors are Gina Conrad and Barry Morton.

The auditing firm has been in engagement with the company throughout the period when the fraud was being committed. One of the common and clear indicators of possible fraud was the company’s cash flow statement. The company experienced positive growth in its profits from the year 1996 through to the year 1998. However, a close analysis of the cash flow statement shows that the company had experienced negative figures of cash flow from both operating and investing activities and positive cash flow from financing activities which would not sufficiently offset the negative cash flows from operating and investing. It is therefore evident