Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Enron ethics case study
Ethics in corporate governance
Ethics of accounting profession
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Enron ethics case study
The accountants who faced ethical dilemmas in this case were Russell Smith, Cardillo's controller, Helen Shepherd, Touche Ross audit partner, Roger Shlonsky, KMG audit partner, and audit subordinates of both Shepherd and Shlonsky. Initially, Smith received a request from the company's attorney, Riley, to sign an affidavit regarding the nature of a transaction with United Airlines, which he knew was recorded incorrectly. Russell was aware that signing this affidavit would result in a misrepresentation of Cardillo's revenue. Each of the auditors faced ethical dilemmas when pressured by key executives of Cardillo, including the COO, CEO, and vice president of finance, to accept the adjusting entry as booked correctly. Without further investigation of this transaction, the auditors would have violated professional standards of integrity and ethical requirements if they had accepted Cardillo's explanations for the "secret" transaction with United Airlines. The parties who could potentially be affected by the outcomes of these dilemmas include Cardillo, the audit firms involved, investors of Cardillo, creditors, and the general public. If the auditors had agreed to accept the transactions, they would not only have subjected their respective audit firms to litigation risk but also compromised the integrity of the audit since it would not be free of material misstatement. On the other hand, by refusing to accept Cardillo's explanation, the auditors could lose Cardillo as a client. Lastly, the auditors have a responsibility to the public, including investors, creditors, and competitors who rely on the financial statements to be accurate. The auditors must maintain independence to ensure that the financial information is fair to all parties and not biased to benefit Cardillo.
Andrea may decide not to inform the limited partners about the misrepresentation of Skyline Views’s financial statements; to avoid conflict, this decision permits Ed to deceive the company and limited partners. In addition, by deciding not to inform the limited partners of Ed’s deceit, Andrea would be disregarding the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Code of Professional Conduct in her being unreliable, dishonest and deceitful. Andrea has the responsibility of protecting her client, which involves encouraging the correction of financial statements in order to prevent suspicion during audits that could lead to fines and imprisonment. Andrea’s second option is to inform the limited partners about how misrepresentations of Skyline Views’s financial statements are permitting Ed to claim a higher management fee; this decision will fulfill her due diligence obligation to the limited partners while maintaining her integrity as a certified public accountant in supporting the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Code of Professional Conduct.
Case 1: In this case. As a certified public accountant, Erickson oversaw and initiated an arbitrary adjustment to increase cash and decrease accounts receivable. Also, Erickson signed Form 10-K with full knowledge that the financial statements include therein incorporated entries misstating revenues. As we can see from this case, Erickson’s behavior not only violate the Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, § 5100(g) and (i), but also against the ethical theories.
Arens, Alvin A., Elder, Randall J., and Beasley, Mark S. (2012). Auditing and Assurance Services:
Auditors do not provide audit opinions for different levels of assurance. Therefore, auditors consider providing more or less assurance when modifying evidence for engagement risk to be unnecessary. However, auditors should be professionally responsible to accumulate additional evidence, assign more experienced personnel, and review the audit more thoroughly, particularly when a client poses a higher than normal degree of engagement risk. The auditor should also modify evidence for engagement risk when high legal exposure and other potential actions affecting the auditor
However, circumstances changed “in cases in which an auditor fails to establish that applicable auditing standards were followed” (Zack 2011). Since WoolEx Mills’ auditors failed to properly identify the fraud risks that caused the material misstatements, they would be in breach of professional duty to shareholders. Litigation would mostly be pursued by WoolEx Mills’ shareholders, WoolEx Mills, third parties impacted by the auditors services, creditors, and other parties who rely on WoolEx Mills financial statements. Each plaintiff would have the right to sue the auditors for their negligence in performing the audit with due diligence. To prove a breach of contract, WoolEx Mills would need to provide the engagement letter as proof that the auditors did not peform the duties agreed upon. Additionally, WoolEx Mills’ auditors would be charged with either gross or ordinary negligence based on their deviation from proper auditing standards. Since the auditors failed to test the company’s internal controls, they would be found guilty of gross negligence. The auditors would be guilty of ordinary negligence if they forgot to complete a section of the vertical analysis of the Income Statement (Zack 2011) (Krishnan & Shah
The principles of the AICPA Code of Conduct should guide the work that Jose and Emily do as auditors. The principles that specifically apply to this situation are Responsibilities, The Public Interest, and Due Care. CPAs have the responsibility to “exercise sensitive professional and moral judgments in all activities.” (Mintz, p. 19)
Individual Article Review Lily Cobian LAW/421 March 31, 2014 Ramon E. Ortiz-Velez Individual Article Review Introduction My article review is based on Sarbanes-Oxley and audit failure, a critical examination why the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was established and why it is not a guarantee to prevent failure of audits. Sarbanes-Oxley Act talks about scandals of Enron which occurred in 2001 and even more appalling the company’s auditor, Arthur Anderson, found guilty of shredding company documents after finding out Enron Company was going to be audited. The exorbitant amounts of money auditors get paid to hide audit discrepancies was also beyond belief. The article went on to explain many companies hire relatives or friends to do their audits, resulting in fraud, money embezzlement, corruption and even the demise of companies. Resulting in the public losing faith in the accounting profession, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act passed in 2002 by congress was designed to restrict what company owners and auditors can and cannot do. From what I gathered in the article, ever since the implementation of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act there has been somewhat of an improvement but questions are still being asked as to why there are still issues that are not being targeted in hopes of preventing more audit failures. The article also talked about four common causes of audit failure: unintentional auditor mistakes, fraud, fatigue and auditor client relationships. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Code of Professional Conduct clearly states an independent auditor because it produces a credible audit, however, when there is conflict of interest, the relation of a former employer, or a relative or even the fear of getting fire...
Throughout the past several years major corporate scandals have rocked the economy and hurt investor confidence. The largest bankruptcies in history have resulted from greedy executives that “cook the books” to gain the numbers they want. These scandals typically involve complex methods for misusing or misdirecting funds, overstating revenues, understating expenses, overstating the value of assets or underreporting of liabilities, sometimes with the cooperation of officials in other corporations (Medura 1-3). In response to the increasing number of scandals the US government amended the Sarbanes Oxley act of 2002 to mitigate these problems. Sarbanes Oxley has extensive regulations that hold the CEO and top executives responsible for the numbers they report but problems still occur. To ensure proper accounting standards have been used Sarbanes Oxley also requires that public companies be audited by accounting firms (Livingstone). The problem is that the accounting firms are also public companies that also have to look after their bottom line while still remaining objective with the corporations they audit. When an accounting firm is hired the company that hired them has the power in the relationship. When the company has the power they can bully the firm into doing what they tell them to do. The accounting firm then loses its objectivity and independence making their job ineffective and not accomplishing their goal of honest accounting (Gerard). Their have been 379 convictions of fraud to date, and 3 to 6 new cases opening per month. The problem has clearly not been solved (Ulinski).
The PCAOB has the authorization to provide rules governing the following areas; ethics, independence, and quality control for any registered accounting firm...
With every business activity come opportunities for fraudulent behavior which leads to a greater demand for auditors with unscathed ethics. Nowadays, auditors are faced with a multitude of ethical issues, and it is even more problematic when the auditors fail to adhere to the standards of professional conducts as prescribed by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). The objective of this paper is to analyze the auditors’ compliance with the code of professional conduct in the way it relates to the effectiveness of their audits.
His project manager, Oliver Freeman, changed the analysis. that Daniel submitted in order to get a clear opinion so that their firm may get an exclusive account. The. My decision was to report the incident so that the correct information would be supplied in the audit documents. The decision I chose may cost Baker Greenleaf to lose an important client and Oliver Freeman to lose his job, but it will uphold the integrity of the accounting profession and keep Daniel Potter safe from the liability of providing false information.
Unethical accounting practices involving Enron date back to 1987. Enron’s use of creative accounting involved moving profits from one period to another to manipulate earnings. Anderson, Enron’s auditor, investigated and reported these unusual transactions to Enron’s audit committee, but failed to discuss the illegality of the acts (Girioux, 2008). Enron decided the act was immaterial and Anderson went along with their decision. At this point, the auditor’s should have reevaluated their risk assessment of Enron’s internal controls in light of how this matter was handled and the risks Enron was willing to take The history of unethical accounting practic...
Auditing has been the backbone of the complicated business world and has always changed with the times. As the business world grew strong, auditors’ roles grew more important. The auditors’ job became more difficult as the accounting principles changed. It also became easier with the use of internal controls, which introduced the need for testing, not a complete audit. Scandals and stock market crashes made auditors aware of deficiencies in auditing, and the auditing community was always quick to fix those deficiencies. Computers played an important role of changing the way audits were performed and also brought along some difficulties.
The Tyco accounting scandal is an ideal illustration of how individuals who hold key positions in an organization are able to manipulate accounting practices and financial reports for personal gain. The few key individuals involved in the Tyco Scandal (CEO Kozlowski and CFO Swartz), used a number of clever and unique tactics in order to accomplish what they did; including spring loading, manipulating their ‘key-employee loan’ program, and multiple ‘hush money’ payouts.
The complete destruction of companies including Arthur Andersen, HealthSouth, and Enron, revealed a significant weakness in the United States audit system. The significant weakness is the failure to deliver true independence between the auditors and their clients. In each of these companies there was deviation from professional rules of conduct resulting from the pressures of clients placed upon their auditors (Goldman, and Barlev 857-859). Over the years, client and auditor relationships were intertwined tightly putting aside the unbiased function of auditors. Auditor careers depended on the success of their client (Kaplan 363-383). Auditors found themselves in situations that put their profession in a questionable time driving them to compromise their ethics, professionalism, objectivity, and their independence from the company. A vital trust relationship role for independent auditors has been woven in society and this role is essential for the effective functioning of the financial economic system (Guiral, Rogers, Ruiz, and Gonzalo 155-166). However, the financial world has lost confidence in the trustworthiness of auditor firms. There are three potential threats to auditor independence: executives hiring and firing auditors, auditors taking positions the client instead of the unbiased place, and auditors providing non audit services to clients (Moore, Tetlock, Tanlu, and Bazerman 10-29).