Woolex Mills Preventive Controls

1580 Words4 Pages

Preventive Controls Financial statement fraud makes up a marginal (less than 10%) percentage of occupational fraud cases, but the median loss is significantly higher at $975,000. A fraud scheme occurring over a significant amount of time will likely result in much higher median losses. For example, a fraud scheme lasting more than five years could result in median losses of $850,000. Larger companies are more likely able to implement strong anti-fraud controls due to size and finances, therefore, smaller companies become more susceptible to fraud schemes due to lack of proper preventive controls. Preventive controls include: implementing internal controls, continually updating the company’s Code of Conduct, rotating jobs/duties, and …show more content…

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 …show more content…

When it comes to the audit objectives, the public and the auditing profession maintain varying expectations. The public expects the prevention of fraud to be the auditor’s responsibility. However, the auditors believe that they are responsible for fraud detection, but not obliged to find all of it. In addition, the public views the fraud by the characteristics displayed by management and employees. For example, WoolEx Mills’ management wanted to exude a prevailing financial position and to uphold reputations. By committing financial statement fraud, it made the company look successful even though Sales and cash flows were decreasing. The public would view these particular characteristics as pressures to why the company committed fraud. Greed, recognition, and influences also impacted the public’s view of Wool Ex Mills’ fraud scheme. The CEO used authority to influence employees to take part in the fraud scheme. The public would see that the CEO utilized power to manipulate shareholders, which impacted their trust with WoolEx Mills (Cohen, Ding, Lesage, & Stolowy 2015) (Krishnan & Shah

Open Document