Waste Management Scandal (1998), is one of the top 10 accounting scandals of all times. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) found the company's owner and former CEO, Dean L Buntrock, guilty, along with several other top executives, and Waste Management's auditors, Arthur Andersen. How does this fact coordinates with the reasons that force an accountant to go for unethical practices?

Waste Management Scandal (1998), is one of the top 10 accounting scandals of all times. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) found the company's owner and former CEO, Dean L Buntrock, guilty, along with several other top executives, and Waste Management's auditors, Arthur Andersen. How does this fact coordinates with the reasons that force an accountant to go for unethical practices?

Contemporary Auditing

11th Edition

ISBN:9781337650380

Author:KNAPP

Publisher:KNAPP

Chapter4: Ethical Responsibilities Of Accountants

Section4.2: F&c International, Inc.

Problem 3Q

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Why have there have been so many business scandals mentioned in the media over the past few years? Have companies simply gotten worse, or have people become more sophisticated in identifying improper activity? What is the role of the Accountant? Sarbanes-Oxley, for example, has placed much more responsibility on the CEO and corporate officers? Are there additional laws that should be considered to ensure these scandals do not continue to occur? Should non-executives be held liable for corporate wrongdoing? in 200 words, please.
The following relates to the Menendez–Halliburton situation described in the text.(a) How would you characterize Halliburton’s accounting for revenue from ethical and professional perspectives?(b) Once KPMG learned that Menendez had provided a complaint to Halliburton’s audit committee highlighting questionable accounting and auditing practices, the KPMG audit partner instructed the audit team members to avoid communications with Menendez. How would you characterize those actions ethically and professionally?
For each separate case, state whether the action or situation shows a violation of the AICPACode of Professional Conduct; if so, explain why and cite the relevant rule or interpretation.a. Your client, Contrary Corporation, is very upset over the fact that your audit last yearfailed to detect an $800,000 inventory overstatement caused by employee theft and falsification of the records. The board discussed the matter and authorized its attorneys toexplore the possibility of a lawsuit for damages.b. Contrary Corporation filed a lawsuit alleging negligent audit work, seeking $1 million indamages.c. In response to the lawsuit by Contrary, you decided to bring litigation against certain officers of the company alleging management fraud and deceit. You are asking for a damagejudgment of $500,000.d. The Allright Insurance Company paid Contrary Corporation $700,000 under a fidelitybond covering an inventory theft by employees. Allright is suing your public accountingfirm for damages on the…
During an internal investigation, Black, a Certified Fraud Examiner, interviewed Green, a fraud suspect. Although Green wanted to leave in the middle of the interview, Black blocked the exit and prevented him from leaving. Green subsequently confessed to committing fraud. If, under these facts, Green files a lawsuit for false imprisonment against Black, Black will likely: A. Win the case because the qualified business privilege protects investigators conducting internal investigations. B. Win the case because Green confessed to the fraud. C. Lose the case if a trier of fact concludes that he restrained Green without consent or legal justification. D. Lose the cans because Green did not leave the interview.
[The following information applies to the questions displayed below.] Per SEC release, from 2012 through 2014 then EY partner Pamela Hartford violated Independence Rules by having an affair with a client. Reports state she engaged in a personal relationship with Robert Brehl, the chief accounting officer of a public company that she serviced as a member of the audit engagement team. Another EY partner Michael Kamienski (the supervising partner on this engagement) became aware of facts suggesting an improper relationship between Hartford and Brehl. However, he failed to follow up on his suspicions. While Hartford and Brehl tried to keep their relationship a secret, they did attend client and EY social events. This suggests that others at both EY and the client could have been aware of the affair. As part of the first SEC enforcement action of its kind, the SEC made charges of a breach of Independence against EY, Hartford, and Kaminski as well as Brehl. All parties agreed to settle the…
[The following information applies to the questions displayed below.] Per SEC release, from 2012 through 2014 then EY partner Pamela Hartford violated Independence Rules by having an affair with a client. Reports state she engaged in a personal relationship with Robert Brehl, the chief accounting officer of a public company that she serviced as a member of the audit engagement team. Another EY partner Michael Kamienski (the supervising partner on this engagement) became aware of facts suggesting an improper relationship between Hartford and Brehl. However, he failed to follow up on his suspicions. While Hartford and Brehl tried to keep their relationship a secret, they did attend client and EY social events. This suggests that others at both EY and the client could have been aware of the affair. As part of the first SEC enforcement action of its kind, the SEC made charges of a breach of Independence against EY, Hartford, and Kaminski as well as Brehl. All parties agreed to settle the…
In January 2008, it was discovered that William Borchard, who handled due diligence for clients of PwC interested in mergers and acquisitions, divulged controversial plans to Gregory Raben, an auditor at the firm, and Raben used the information to buy stock ahead of a series of corporate takeovers. The SEC found the two guilty of insider trading, a violation of the law. Assume none of the clients were audit clients. What are the ethical issues involved in engaging in such transactions? Were any of the AICPA rules of conduct violated? Explain.
Rules governing the investment practices of individual certified public accountants prohibit them from investing in the stock of a company that their firm audits. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) became concerned that some accountants were violating this rule. In response to an SEC investigation, PricewaterhouseCoopers fired 10 people and spent $25 million educating employees about the investment rules and installing an investment tracking system. Why do you think PricewaterhouseCoopers took such extreme steps in response to the SEC investigation?
The CEO and the CFO of Automation Company were both aware that the company’s controller was reporting fraudulent revenues. Upper-level executives are paid very large bonuses when the company meets the earnings goals established in the company’s budgets. While the CEO had pushed the CFO and controller to “make the numbers,” he had not told him to “make up the numbers.” Besides, he could plead ignorance if the fraud was ever discovered. The CFO knew he should prohibit the fraudulent reporting but also knew the importance of making the numbers established in the budget. He told himself that it wasn’t just for his bonus but for the stockholders as well. If the actual earnings were below the budgeted target numbers, the stock price would drop and the shareholders would suffer. Besides, he believed that the actual revenues would increase dramatically in the near future and they could cover for the fraudulent revenue by underreporting these future revenues. He concluded that no one would get…
The CEO and the CFO of Automation Company were both aware that the company’s controller was reporting fraudulent revenues. Upper-level executives are paid very large bonuses when the company meets the earnings goals established in the company’s budgets. While the CEO had pushed the CFO and controller to “make the numbers,” he had not told him to “make up the numbers.” Besides, he could plead ignorance if the fraud was ever discovered. The CFO knew he should prohibit the fraudulent reporting but also knew the importance of making the numbers established in the budget. He told himself that it wasn’t just for his bonus but for the stockholders as well. If the actual earnings were below the budgeted target numbers, the stock price would drop and the shareholders would suffer. Besides, he believed that the actual revenues would increase dramatically in the near future and they could cover for the fraudulent revenue by underreporting these future revenues. He concluded that no one would get…
The CEO and the CFO of Automation Company were both aware that the company’s controller was reporting fraudulent revenues. Upper-level executives are paid very large bonuses when the company meets the earnings goals established in the company’s budgets. While the CEO had pushed the CFO and controller to “make the numbers,” he had not told him to “make up the numbers.” Besides, he could plead ignorance if the fraud was ever discovered. The CFO knew he should prohibit the fraudulent reporting but also knew the importance of making the numbers established in the budget. He told himself that it wasn’t just for his bonus but for the stockholders as well. If the actual earnings were below the budgeted target numbers, the stock price would drop and the shareholders would suffer. Besides, he believed that the actual revenues would increase dramatically in the near future and they could cover for the fraudulent revenue by underreporting these future revenues. He concluded that no one would get…
The CEO and the CFO of Automation Company were both aware that the company’s controller was reporting fraudulent revenues. Upper-level executives are paid very large bonuses when the company meets the earnings goals established in the company’s budgets. While the CEO had pushed the CFO and controller to “make the numbers,” he had not told him to “make up the numbers.” Besides, he could plead ignorance if the fraud was ever discovered. The CFO knew he should prohibit the fraudulent reporting but also knew the importance of making the numbers established in the budget. He told himself that it wasn’t just for his bonus but for the stockholders as well. If the actual earnings were below the budgeted target numbers, the stock price would drop and the shareholders would suffer. Besides, he believed that the actual revenues would increase dramatically in the near future and they could cover for the fraudulent revenue by underreporting these future revenues. He concluded that no one would get…