The Securities And Exchange Commission 's Rationale For Charging Cardillo

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

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is the US federal agency that holds the primary mandate to enforce federal securities laws and regulations to control the securities industry and the country’s stock exchange and regulation of all activities and organizations including the US electronic securities market. The SEC is committed to promoting a market environment that yields public trust characterized by integrity to attain its mission of protecting investors through maintenance of fair and efficient markets through facilitation of capital information (Basagne, 2010). The SEC financing is a major area of focus since there has been major concern regarding the SEC agency financing and whether they utilize the

Presence of Board of Directors, Audit committee, Board’s compliance with the SEC’s Blue ribbon committee, independent and experienced board members, management’s oversight and audit committee’s annual review’s leaves very less room for opportunity for employee’s to commit any type of fraud and present misstated financial information.

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).

Situations arise that cause companies to conduct or record fraudulent transactions to deceive the stakeholders or in the case of Cardillo Travel Systems, meet court orders. Cardillo Travel Systems, ranked as the fourth largest company in the travel agency industry, was founded in 1935 and purchased by A. Walter Rognlien in 1956. After being acquired by Rognlien, annual revenue increased steadily but expenses were increasing at a more rapid rate. By 1985, Cardillo was involved in a lawsuit and a court injunction required the company to maintain at least $3 million in stockholders’ equity. Around the same time, Rognlien had negotiated a transaction with United Airlines that if record as revenue would ensure the minimum stockholders’ equity was met (Rittenberg, Johnstone, Gramling, & Knapp, 2012). As with most fraudulent activity, management worked together to get around the terms of the agreement and get the transaction recorded. This action led to the various violations including making false representations to outside auditors, failing to maintain accurate financial records, failing to file prompt financial reports with the Securities Exchange and Commission (SEC) and violating insider trading provisions.

Corporate fraud was the cornerstone for the strict implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). SOX implements many compliance regulations, but one of its regulations, specifically Section 404, relates to an organization’s internal control procedures with the purpose of protecting organizational assets and investors’ interest. Consequently, organizations, big or small, private or public, are prone to fraud. SOX’s compliance of internal control procedures is developed through the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) known as the COSO framework that consists of the following procedures: control environment, risk assessment, control activities, information and communication and monitoring. Each variable address a layer that builds upon each other by

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

This paper explores the ZZZZ Best Company which was begun by a 16 year old individual who was able to pull the wool over the eyes of many customers, investors and auditors. This paper will define the difference between review and audit when it comes to financial reports, comments on the procedures provided with regard to the management assertion of occurrence, verification of payments for jobs and how they can lead auditors to improper conclusion, the purpose of predecessor-successor auditor communications, as well as whom needs to initiate the communication and information that needs to be obtained. The paper also addresses the limitations of the confidentiality agreement and how and when

Prior to Cardillo Travel Systems, Inc. closing their doors the Security Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a suit against Cardillo Travel Systems, Inc. for the following reasons; making false representation to outside auditors; failing to maintain accurate financial records; failing to file prompt financial reports with the SEC; and violating the insider trading provisions of the federal securities laws. I will attempt to give explanations to previously mention SEC violations only with explaining which violations violated or was compliant of the AICPA’s Code of Professional Conduct.

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,

The Prefab Sprout Company is a construction company which develops and constructs modular home enclosures in South Florida. Though being listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), it is still a family-run business with about 40% of the shares resting with the Warner family. This working paper provides a thorough analysis of Prefab’s internal structure and its external business relations from an auditor’s viewpoint. In particular, the potential business and audit risks that could possibly evolve from an audit engagement are central to this study.

The Prefab Sprout Company is a construction company which develops and constructs modular home enclosures in South Florida. Though being listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), it is still a family-run business with about 40% of the shares resting with the Warner family. This working paper provides a thorough analysis of Prefab’s internal structure and its external business relations from an auditor’s viewpoint. In particular, the potential business and audit risks that could possibly evolve from an audit engagement are central to this study.

This research paper will explore the fraud at Tyco and focus primarily on accounting and auditing issues related to the fraud. One thing worth noting about this case is that fraudulent financial reporting was not at the core of the fraud, which was the case with majority other big frauds at the time, such as Enron and Waste Management. On the contrary, fraud consisted of misappropriation of assets, and fraudulent financial reporting came as a consequence of trying to hide misappropriation of assets and the use of corporate money for personal benefit.

Cable provider Adelphia was one of the major accounting scandals of the early 2000s that led to the creation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. A key provision of the Act was to create a stronger ethical climate in the auditing profession, a consequence of the apparent role that auditors played in some of the scandals. SOX mandated that auditors cannot audit the same companies for which they provide consulting services, as this link was perceived to result in audit teams being pressured to perform lax audits in order to secure more consulting business from the clients. There were other provisions in SOX that increased the regulatory burden on the auditing profession in response to lax auditing practices in scandals like Adelphia (McConnell & Banks, 2003). This paper will address the Adelphia scandal as it relates to the auditors, and the deontological ethics of the situation.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the role of external auditing in promoting good corporate governance. The role of auditors has been emphasized after the pass of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act as a response to the accounting scandal of Enron. Even though auditors are hired and paid by the company, their role is not to represent or act in favor of the company, but to watch and investigate the company’s financials to protect the public from any material misstatements that can affect their decisions. As part of this role, the auditors assess the level of the company’s adherence to its own code of ethics.