Whistleblowing And The Sarbanes-Oxley Act

The internal control practice of separation of duties failed to prevent the fraudulent reporting since various players were committing the scam. The CEO plus the CFO of the Automation Company were both aware of the controller's false revenues. The company had separation of duties meaning that one person was not doing all the financial reporting for the entire finance department. Nevertheless, more than one individual was checking the financial revenue statements reported to the stakeholders. However, no one did anything to stop the fraudulent information from being disclosed. Regardless of the distasteful outcome business ethics was not enforced nor was the consideration of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Throughout history and in our own time, legitimate accounting methods have been utilized to fraudulently engage in manipulating activities that results in illicit gains to the perpetrators and losses to individuals and financial institutions.

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

In the past, many corporate executive have committed various forms scandals in their organizations. Such fraudulent arts are unethical and immoral behavior. This led the US government to form legislation in order to control fraudulent activities; mostly performed by senior officers in the organization. In view of this, this paper will address the following: historical summary on SOX enactment, the key ethical components of SOX, social responsibility implications regarding mandatory publication of corporate ethics, whether the criticisms of SOX implication presents an unfair burden on smaller organizations and suggestions on the improvement of SOX legislation.

Prior to 2002, financial statement reporting for publically traded companies within the United States was overseen with far less oversight in comparison to current reporting standards and procedures. Appropriate financial reporting is merely one element that was not occurring prior to 2002. An element of corporate dishonesty and deception existed within some the largest publically traded companies and this idea of deceitfulness was perpetuated by the executive staff of the businesses. Enron’s financial disintegration became the facilitator for the need of more rigid financial oversight, but they were not the only company that added to the idea of corporate fraud.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, is an act passed by U.S. Congress on July 30, 2002. The primary reason was to protect investors from the possibility of fraudulent accounting activities by corporations. The act is commonly known as SOX Act. The act is named after its cosponsors, U.S. Senator Paul Sarbanes and U.S. Representative Michael G. Oxley. It mandates strict reforms to improve financial disclosures from corporations and prevent accounting fraud. The Sarbanes Oxley Act is arranged into eleven titles. They are Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), Auditor Independence, Corporate Responsibility, Enhanced Financial Disclosures, Analyst Conflicts of Interest, Commission Resources and Authority, White Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement, Corporate Tax Returns, and Corporate Fraud Accountability. These titles provide the description of specific requirements and mandates for the financial reporting. The SOX Act monitors compliance through various sections. However, the most significant sections are 302 (Disclosure controls), 401 (Disclosures in periodic reports), 404 (Assessment of internal control), 802 (Criminal penalties for influencing US Agency investigation/proper administration). As a result of SOX Act, the top management must individually certify the accuracy of financial information. The Act increased the oversight role of board of directors and the independence of the outside

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed in 2002 as a response to a wave of corporate accounting scandals that damaged public trust in the controls of the US financial system. SOX therefore was created in order to create the framework for better control over accounting information and better accountability among members of senior management. Damianides (2006) notes that much of the burden of providing these tighter controls has fallen to IT departments. The Act not only sets out prescriptions for tighter internal controls, but effectively mandates that senior IT managers will need to communicate those controls to their CFO and CEO, as well as to external auditors.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was the result of a number of large financial scandals in the United States in the late 1990s and early 2000s. One of the most well-known corporate accounting scandals was the Enron scandal, which was exposed in 2001. Enron, an energy company that was considered one of the most financially sound corporations in the United States before the scandal, produced false earnings reports to shareholders and kept large debts off the accounting books (Peavler, 2016). Enron executives also committed fraud by embezzling corporate funds and manipulating the stock market. Enron shareholders lost around $74 billion dollars, Enron employees lost their retirement accounts, and some Enron employees even lost their jobs (The 10 Worst Corporate Accounting Scandals of All Time, n.d.).

Fraud is an issue that causes major scandals, although it is a very ancient scheme. Recent fraud events gave light to gaps that facilitated its events. Its extent was drastic by affecting financial markets that eventually trickled into global markets. Major organizations and countries worked cohesively and continue to address the gaps and, in effect, implemented strict compliance regulations to diminish and refrain fraudulent activities. Strict compliance regulations are examples of a fraud response plan the small family business could have implemented to refrain the perpetrators from fraudulent incidents, protect organizational assets and the organization’s going concern.

Drawbaugh and Aubin (2012) took the opportunity with the ten year anniversary of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to analyze whether the act has been effective. Passed in 2002 amid a wave of accounting scandals, Sarbanes Oxley (SOX) was intended to strengthen the accounting, auditing and reporting of public companies and boost investor confidence in the US financial system.

When revisiting some history where scandals have taken place such as Enron or WorldCom, it became necessary for stronger controls to be put in place and have all people involved held accountable for their actions. It is for this reason that Sarbanes-Oxley Act is in place. It has not stopped fraud from occurring; however, it does create a deterrent. In reading about the Societe Generale fiasco poor IT security is the focal point in this fraud. Stronger security controls will be the only way fraud of this magnitude will not take place again.

The Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act of 2002 was signed into federal law on July 30, 2002. The stated purpose of the law is "to protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures made pursuant to the security laws, and for other purposes." The law has influenced long term changes in the way publicly traded companies manage auditors, financial reporting, executive responsibility and internal controls. SOX is considered the most substantial piece of corporate regulation since the securities laws of the 1930's (Stults, 2004).

The time frame is early 2002, and the news breaks worldwide. The collapse of corporate giants in America amidst fraud and stock manipulations surfaces. Enron, WorldCom, HealthSouth and later Adelphia are all suspected of the highest level of fraud, accounting manipulation, and unethical behavior. This is a dark time in history of Corporate America. The FBI and the CIA are doing investigations on all of these companies as it relates to unethical account practices, and fraud emerges. Investigations found that Enron, arguably the most well-known, had long shredding sessions of important documents and gross manipulation of stocks and bonds. This company alone caused one of the biggest economic

The Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX) was sanctioned in July 2002 with the objective of reestablishing public trust in the markets. SOX was promised as one of the opportunities for cultivating organizational ethics by clearly outlining the code of ethics. This included the raise of truthful and strong ethical behavior. SOX moreover, demands that corporate organizations to release codes applicable to the senior financial officer. Indorsing whistle blowing in the event of ethical misconduct is encouraged (Kessel, 2011).

Whistle-blowing is a person who exposes any kind of information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical or not correct either private or public within an organization or company. When an individual discovers evidence of malpractice or misconduct in an organization he/ she faces an ethical dilemma in which a decision has to be made. Either present documentation or turn the blind eye and not acknowledge the situation. Such information can be classified as a violation of company policy, rules, and regulations or a threat to public interest, national security, as well as fraud and corruption. Those that choose to become whistle-blowers can disclose their information either internal or external.