Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Lessons from corporate scandals
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Lessons from corporate scandals
There is usually shock and disbelief when fraud is discovered in a corporation. Fraud is a very general term that refers to the deliberate deception to secure an unfair or unlawful gain. Fraud involves a theft that the perpetrator often tries to conceal (Farrell and Franco 1999). The perpetrator then attempts to transfer the stolen assets or resources into personal assets or resources (Farrell and Franco 1999). In general, financial fraud is made up of four broad categories consisting of fraudulent financial reporting, misappropriation of assets, expenditures and liabilities for inappropriate intentions, and fraudulently obtained revenues and assets that include avoided costs and expenses (PricewaterhouseCoopers 2008). A company that attempts to prevent fraud avoids a catastrophic risk. A culture of honesty and ethics, antifraud processes and controls, and an appropriate oversight process are the best practices for the prevention and detection of fraud.
In 2002, after a chain of highly publicized corporate scandals, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, intending to restore investor confidence in publicly traded securities. Traditionally, management and the board of directors were in charge of managing the company and preparing financial statements. However, this new law makes it clear that they are also in charge of creating, confirming and supervising effective internal controls in order to avoid fraudulent financial reporting. When fraudulent financial reporting does arise, they are expected to detect it in a timely manner. (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2003) Common issues considered to be the primary factors that allow fraud to occur consist of a lack of internal controls and internal controls that are overridden by th...
... middle of paper ...
...s/view.asp?ArticleID=638 > (5 March 2011)
Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. 2008. “ACFE Fraud Prevention Check-up.”
< http://www. acfe.com/documents/Fraud_Prev_Checkup_IA.pdf > (5 March 2011).
Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. 2010. “Report to the Nations on Occupational Fraud
and Abuse.” < http://www.acfe.com/rttn/rttn-2010.pdf > (5 March 2011).
Farrell, Barbara R. and Joseph R. Franco. 1999. “The Role of the Auditor in the Prevention and
Detection of Business Fraud: SAS No. 82.” Western Criminology Review 2/1/ [Online].
Available: http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v2n1/v2n1.html. (5 March 2011).
PricewaterhouseCoopers. 2003. “Key Elements of Antifraud Programs and Controls.” [Online].
Available: http://www.som.yale.edu/faculty/Sunder/FinancialFraud/Elements%20of%
20Antifraud%20Program%20-%20White%20Paper.pdf. (5 March 2011).
Regardless of when financial statement fraud first occurred and the development of technology, it will be infinite. People may believe that as technology becomes more advanced, there will be less opportunity to commit fraud and it is easier to catch, but as technology evolves, so do the fraudulent schemes while weaving in the old ones but with a twist. There are always going to be individuals that feel that they will never be the one to get caught and believe that they are invincible to all. There remains a population that lives by means of entitlement, and therefore, minimizing their actions and rationalize them once given an opportunity and the perceived need equaling greed. As fraud evolves, individuals learn by other's mistakes and develop more complex schemes to provide confusion. According to the Wisconsin Law Journal (2012), “financial statement fraud is an ugly fraud with methods that are complex and often not understood by the average consumer or investor, and its results often aren’t tangible to the average person.” Therefore, by making a complex financial statement fraud, the gain is enormous with the amount of investigation overwhelming to determine a portion of the
Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley Acts are important legislations in the corporate world because of their link to public and privately held companies. Sarbanes-Oxley Act was enacted to enhance transparency and accountability in publicly traded companies. On the contrary, Dodd-Frank Act was enacted to disentangle the confused web of financial service company valuations. Actually, these valuations are usually hidden by complex and unclear financial instruments. The introduction of Sarbanes-Oxley Act was fueled by recent incidents of accounting frauds by top executives of major corporations such as Enron. In contrast, Dodd-Frank Act was enacted as a response to the tendency by banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, rating agencies, and accounting companies to serve up harmful offer of ruined assets and liabilities brought by systemic non-disclosure (Anand, 2011, p.1). While these regulations have some similarities and differences, they have a strong relationship with the financial markets.
It has been a decade since the Sarbanes-Oxley Act became in effect. Obviously, the SOX Act which aimed at increasing the confidence in the US capital market really has had a profound influence on public companies and public accounting firms. However, after Enron scandal which triggered the issue of SOX Act, public company lawsuits due to fraud still emerged one after another. As such, the efficacy of the 11-year-old Act has continually been questioned by professionals and public. In addition, the controversy about the cost and benefit of Sarbanes-Oxley Act has never stopped.
Consistent accounting and financial frauds in the U.S. alerted the SEC to the imperative need for policy and corporate governance changes. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002 was enacted to encourage financial disclosures, enhance corporate responsibility, and combat fraudulent behaviour. This Act also helped create the PCAOB, which oversees the auditing practice (Stanwick & Stanwick 2009).
A possible flaw of Sarbanes-Oxley is it failed to put up any resistance in thwarting the financial crisis. While the degree to which fraudulent behavior can be traced to the roots of the Great Panic of 2007 will likely be up for eternal debate, it might be telling that Sarbanes-Oxley effectively did nothing. It seems this could indicate that stronger incentives for whistleblowers (such as Dodd-Frank and perhaps other whistleblower protection regimes) are very necessary given the extreme social costs. This conclusion may be hasty, however, given the short time period between the enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley and the crash. Not only is the status of Sarbanes-Oxley still in flux over a decade later, but one has to consider the substantial learning and switching costs associated with a regime with such a substantial ruach. Certainly, this is not to say that additional protections may in fact be necessary given the putative reluctance of lawyers to report fraud, but Sarbanes-Oxley likely needed more time to really crystalize and provide some level of predictability before it can be declared a bust.
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).
[17] Robert K. Elliot, CPA and John J. Willingham PhD, CPA, Management Fraud: Detection and Deterrence. New York: Petrocelli Books, Inc., 1980, pp. vii.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act was enacted following a prolonged period of corporate scandals involving large public companies from 2000 to 2002, this was to restore investors confidence in markets and close loopholes for public companies to defraud investors. This act has had a profound effect on cooperate governance in the US, it requires public companies to strengthen audit committees, perform internal controls tests, set personal liability of directors and officers for accuracy of financial statements, and strengthen disclosure. The Sarbanes-Oxley
Taking a look at Donald Cressey’s hypotheses which is now known as the fraud triangle depicts the certain criteria for the mind frame of the fraudster. The fraud triangle is a theory that consists of perceived pressures, perceived opportunity, and rationalization. It gives us the different pressures placed on individuals that would make them consider “cooking the books.” It also demonstrates where the possible opportunity lies so that we may take precautions to eliminate the opportunity. Last, it demonstrates how a fraudster rationalizes with themselves to make committing the fraud okay. Donald Cressey believes all three elements must be present for fraud to occur. Upper management is usually the focus of financial statement fraud because financial statements are done at the management level. So in this case financial statement fraud was committed by the CEO Gregory Podlucky
Accounting fraud refers to fraud that is committed by a company by maintaining false information about the sales and income in the company books, when overstating the company's assets or profits, when a company is actually undergoing a loss. These fraudulent records are then used to seek investment in the company's bond or security issues. By showing these false entries, the company attempts to apply fraudulent loan applications as a final attempt to save the company by obtaining more money from bankruptcy. Accounting frauds is actually done to hide the company’s actual financial issues.
The oversight responsibilities of the board, the CAE lacking of expertise or broad understanding of financial controls and responsibilities, and the understaffed internal audit functions lacking of independence and direct access to the board of directors contributed to the absence of internal controls. To begin with, the board should be retrained to achieve financial literacy to review financial reporting. Other than attending formal meetings, the board of directors should be more involved with the management. For the Audit Committee, the two members who were recruited as acquaintances to Brennahan need be replaced with experts who are more sufficiently knowledgeable about accounting rules beyond merely “financially literate”. Furthermore, the internal audit functions need to expand with different expertise commensurate with the expanded activities of the organization, testing financial reporting rather than internal controls from an operational perspective. The CAE should be more independent and proactive to execute audit plans, instead of following orders from the CFO, and initiate a direct and efficient communication between internal audit and audit
ABSTRACT: The quantity of accounting fraud cases keeps on rising. Fraud is a consistent thing that will reliably be around, and in a bigger number of routes than just a single. An extensive apportionment of organizations out there fighting fraud, either from within the organization, or from outside the organization. Knowing how to manage this is essential for an organization to be productive over an extended period of time. The investigation regarding the matter of accounting fraud will utilize sources from the web and the DeVry School Library.
This shows how a lack of transparency in reporting of financial statements leads to the destruction of a company. This all happened under the watchful eye of an auditor, Arthur Andersen. After this scandal, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was changed to keep into account the role of the auditors and how they can help in preventing such
Fraud is defined as someone try to act with intention to cheat other people in order to acquire an unfair or illegal advantage. The fraud happens due to management override the internal control of the organisation and fraud will affect the financial reporting. The main categories of fraud that can affect financial reporting are fraudulent financial reporting and misappropriation of assets.
For those who do not know what fraud is, it’s basically deception by showing people what they want to see. In business it’s the same concept, but in a larger scale by means of manipulating figures that will be shown to shareholders and investors. Before Sarbanes Oxley Act there was “Enron Corporation”, a fortune 500 company that managed to falsify their statements claiming revenues over 101 billion in a span of 15 years. In order for us to understand how this corporation managed to deceive the public for so long, the documentary or movie “Smartest Guys in the Room” goes into depth by providing viewers with first-hand information from people that worked close with or for “Enron”.