The Sarbanes-Oxley Act

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 is a U.S. federal law that has generated much controversy, and involved the response to the financial scandals of some large corporations such as Enron, Tyco International, WorldCom and Peregrine Systems. These scandals brought down the public confidence in auditing and accounting firms. The law is named after Senator Paul Sarbanes Democratic Party and GOP Congressman Michael G. Oxley. It was passed by large majorities in both Congress and the Senate and covers and sets new performance standards for boards of directors and managers of companies and accounting mechanisms of all publicly traded companies in America. It also introduces criminal liability for the board of directors and a requirement by

This memorandum discusses a brief history of Pat, his wrongdoings and related action, and the response by the related law enforcement agencies.

The effects of the economic market crash of 1929 appeared in how the public sustained severe losses at the hands of securities traders and corporations. With the unmistakable need to restore financial specialist trust in the securities market President Roosevelt pushed for a huge securities regulation and the creation of the Securities Act of 1933 sprouted along with the approval of Congress. Then in a year later in 1934 Congress observed the need to make modifications to the 1933 Act by establishing an independent governmental regulatory body the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC main responsibility came to be to ensure and protect the public against malpractices in the securities and financial markets. As the years passed businesses and technology advances developed and the economic market expanded. With the economy market positive rise many companies needed to keep up and acted upon fraudulent acts in order to stay in the business competition. Companies acted fraudulent by “cooking the books” in recording

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002Introduction2001-2002 was marked by the Arthur Andersen accounting scandal and the collapse of Enron and WorldCom. Corporate reforms were demanded by the government, the investors and the American public to prevent similar future occurrences. Viewed to be largely a result of failed or poor governance, insufficient disclosure practices, and a lack of satisfactory internal controls, in 2002 George W. Bush signed into law the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that became effective on July 30, 2002. Congress was seeking to set standards and guarantee the accuracy of financial reports.

Prior to the advent of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, referred to herein as “SOX,” the board of directors’ pivotal role was to advise senior leaders on the organization’s strategy, business model, and succession planning (Larcker, 2011, p. 3). Additionally, the board had the responsibility for risk management identification and risk mitigation oversight, determining executive benefits, and approval of significant acquisitions (Larcker, 2011, p. 3). Furthermore, for many public organizations, audit committees existed before SOX and provided oversight of internal processes and controls. Melissa Maleske (2012) advised that the roles and responsibilities of the board were viewed “…from a perspective that the board serves management” (p. 2). In contrast, Maleske (2012) noted that SOX regulations altered the landscape “…to a perspective that management is working for the board” (p. 2). SOX expanded not only the duties of the board and the audit committee, but also the authority of these bodies (Maleske, 2012, p. 2).

White collar crime has been around for ages. Today more and more news stories can be found where the elite, the top executives of fortune 500 companies, are being prosecuted for participating in illegal activities. It was hoped that the passing of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2001 after the Enron debacle would reduce the amount of illegal acts being committed in corporate America. The Sarbanes Oxley act makes executives personally responsible for their activities requiring top management to sign off on financial statements stating they are true and accurate and these executives can face jail time for committing fraudulent acts. Unfortunately, immorality in business is still running rampant. One illegal practice we see happening in

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) was enacted to bring back public trust in markets. Building trust requires ethics within organizations. Through codes of ethics, organizations are put in line to conduct themselves in a manner that promotes public trust. Through defining a code of ethics, organizations can follow, market becomes fair for investors to have confidence in the integrity of the disclosures and financial reports given to them. The code of ethics include “the promotion of honest and ethical conduct, requiring disclosure on the codes that apply to senior financial officers, and including provisions to encourage whistle blowing” (A Business Ethics Perspective on Sarbanes Oxley and the Organizational Sentencing Guidelines). The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was signed into law from public demand for a reform. Even though there are some criticism about it, the act still stands to prevent and punish corporate fraud and malpractice.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) was enacted to bring back public trust in markets. Building trust requires ethics within organizations. Through codes of ethics, organizations conduct themselves in a manner that promotes public trust. Through defining a code of ethics, organizations can follow, the market becomes fair for investors to have confidence in the integrity of the disclosures and financial reports given to them. The code of ethics includes the promotion of honest and ethical conduct. This code requires disclosure on the codes that apply to senior financial officers and including provisions to encourage whistle blowing, a Business Ethics Perspective on Sarbanes-Oxley and the Organizational Sentencing Guidelines. The Congress signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act into law in response to the public demand for reform. Even though there is some criticism of it, the act still stands to prevent and punish corporate fraud and malpractice.

Numerous scandals broke out in the early 2000s, losing the trust of investors in the public

The SEC appoints the members of the PCAOB and has oversight and enforcement authority over it.

Most word references characterize fraud as a bogus representation of true data. Whether that false data is given by expressing false words, deluding claims, or by concealing or disguising uncovered data, it is viewed as fraudulent because of the beguiling nature. In spite of the fact that it is deceptive to give false data, people even in real companies will attempt to cover their misfortunes by reporting false data. Taking after many years of monetary frauds and outrages including executives and officers at a portion of the biggest organizations in the United States, Congress established the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Cheeseman, 2013). Congress ordered the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX Act) to shield customers from the fraudulent exercises of significant partnerships. This paper will give a brief history of the SOX Act, portray how it will shield general society from fraud inside of partnerships, and give a presumption to the viability of the capacity of the demonstration to shield purchasers from future frauds.

Corporations around the world have exhibited ethical business practices. However, some corporations gave into unethical business practices such as fraud, dishonesty, and scams. One particular dishonest act that remained common amongst companies such as Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco was the fabrication of financial statements. These companies were reporting false information on their financial statements so that it would appear that the companies were making profits. However, those companies were actually losing money instead. Because of these companies’ actions, the call to have American businesses to be regulated under new rules served as a very important need. In 2002, Paul Sarbanes from the Senate and Michael G. Oxley from the House of Representatives created what is now known as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

On July 30, 2002, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was signed into law by the acting President George W. Bush. The overall purpose of the Act was “to protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures made pursuant to the securities laws, and for other purposes.” (SEC, 2013) This Act mandated multiple amendments to improve corporate responsibility, enhance financial disclosures, and combat corporate and accounting fraudulent practices. One requirement of the Act involves a management’s report on internal controls over financial reporting to be included in the annual financial reports of a company. On July 30, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that CEO Marc Sherman and former CFO Edward L. Cummings of a computer equipment company named QSGI, Inc. are being charged with misrepresenting the state of its internal controls over financial reporting to external auditors and the investing public. Inadequate internal control within the company can be extremely detrimental because investors and lenders rely heavily on financial reports to make decisions. The incorrect records of QSGI enabled the company to maximize loans from their top creditor. This report will show how QSGI’s lack of internal controls hindered their ability to generate revenue and maintain one of the company’s operation centers.

Foremost, a company hires an auditor to preform an audit. He/she is paid $1,000,000 dollars for their services. In addition, the company is willing to pay the auditor an additional $700,000 for providing more services. This additional pay may stem from the auditor’s friendly relationship with the company’s management. This scenario could potentially cause a huge ethical dilemma for the auditor. Given the friendship between the two parties, the auditor could very well be tempted to “cook the books” by management. This could very well happen if the company needs to improve their company’s earnings. Friendship combined with lofty pay could easily persuade the auditor into disregarding the GAAP as well as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Furthermore, the nature of the job is highly unethical. As it violates several provisions of the aforementioned Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The auditor, management, and the top executives of the company will all be affected by this ethical dilemma.