evaluate major causes of corporate | My Assignment Tutor

Submission DeadlineMarks and FeedbackBefore 6pm on: 14 January 202115 working days after deadline (All Levels) Module title & codeFor Acc & AC 32-3Assignment number and title2Assessment typeIndividual ReportWeighting of assessment40%Module learning outcomes1. Explain relevant theories, concepts and frameworks of forensic accounting and evaluate major causes of corporate, bank and financial scams.2. Investigate different fraudulent accounting practices and suggest measures for their deterrence. What am I required to do in this assignment?Please read the below case and complete these tasks. Task 1: Critically evaluate the fraud scheme used by the perpetratorTask 2: Perpetrators of fraud often display “red flags” or warning signs. Discuss common red flags being associated with the fraud perpetrator in the above case. Task 3: Apply the fraud triangle to the above case and discuss various aspects related to each triangle in detail. Task 4: Discuss the possible solutions of how to prevent such cases in future and also few lessons learned from the given case.CASE Misplaced trust Church leaders drain at least $673,000 from accounts.On Dec. 8, 2014, Onondaga County Court Judge Joseph E. Fahey spoke out at the sentencing of John Osborn when he tried to weasel out of a predetermined guilty plea. “I have to tell you, Mr. Osborn, I was born at night, but it wasn’t last night, okay. …” Fahey said. “And what it tells me more than anything else is something that I think I already knew from looking at this scam and from looking at your history, is that you’re a conman and have been a conman for most of your adult life. You conned these poor people out here in the church. You conned other people in the past … and now you are attempting to con me and the court system. And it isn’t going to happen this morning. Your day of reckoning has arrived. Upon your plea of guilty to grand larceny in the second degree, it is the sentence and judgment of the Court you be sentenced to a minimum of five years and maximum of 15 years.” The church The unnamed church is a small United Methodist congregation in upstate New York, which has served the community for 150 years and operates on an annual budget of less than $200,000. The members created — mainly through bequests in their estates — a series of endowments to fund a variety of needs within the church. Over the years, the endowment had grown to more than $600,000. The players Osborn, born in 1958, was a self-employed local businessman and financial advisor in Syracuse, New York. His wife, Mary Meyer, born in 1956, was a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) and an attorney. Meyer became a CPA in 1980, and after graduating from Syracuse Law School in 2000, she was admitted to the bar. She was the chief financial officer of the Central New York Community Foundation — a charitable organization with assets of $133 million. In early 2000, John Osborn and Mary Meyer joined the congregation. By 2008, Meyer had volunteered to become the church’s treasurer. Osborn was the church’s lay leader and sometimes delivered a Sunday sermon. When the church needed someone to manage its money, Osborn told the church leaders that he would “gladly” volunteer as the head of the finance committee. The church leadership was thankful to Meyer and Osborn because no one else had the expertise or desire to manage these duties. The congregation explicitly trusted Osborn and Meyer to responsibly handle the financial affairs of the church. Discovery of a guilty past Four years after Osborn and Meyer assumed their roles, the church began to experience unexplained shortfalls. Bills were not being paid on time and vendors were sending late notices. The church pastor said she wasn’t being paid consistently. Some members of the church council were growing concerned. Osborn and Meyer assured them everything was fine and supported this lie with a spreadsheet that showed no money was missing. In June 2012, Osborn asked a fellow parishioner for a $60,000 loan to help out one of his business partners. (See accused church embezzlers were each other’s check and balance, by John O’Brien, Syracuse.com/The Post-Standard, and Oct. 20, 2013.) Osborn didn’t repay the money on the promised due date of the loan. As time passed, the parishioner decided to contact his lawyer who hired a private investigator to research Osborn. Together they discovered that 13 judgments totaling $275,000 between 1990 and 2006 had been filed against Osborn. These included U.S. Internal Revenue Service tax liens of $42,000 and 11 lawsuits mostly from broken business promises and unpaid debts. According to the Syracuse.com/The Post-Standard article, they learned that Osborn pleaded guilty in 1992 to stealing $120,000 from the Camillus Housing Authority when he was the agency’s treasurer. He was convicted of “falsifying business records,” sentenced to five years of probation and ordered to repay the money. The attorney and private investigator met with the church pastor and told her that they believed that the church’s financial problems were because of Osborn’s thefts. After the Onondaga County District Attorney’s Office’s further investigation, it determined that Osborn and Meyer embezzled approximately $673,000 during their time managing the church finances. CHURCH LEADERS SHOULD’VE REQUIRED OSBORN AND MEYER TO PERIODICALLY REPORT TO THE BOARD, NOT JUST SIMPLY ASSURING THEM ALL WAS WELL WITH BOGUS SPREADSHEETS.” The tawdry details According to the grand jury indictment, the church’s cash assets were comprised of a checking account at Alliance Bank together with an investment account at RBC Wealth Management. The investment account was segregated into a variety of program efforts — the New Building Fund, the Parsonage Fund, the Maintenance Fund and the Memorial Fund — but totaled more than $600,000. Osborn had signatory control over all of these accounts and was able to transfer funds from the RBC investment account into the Alliance checking account. Between January 2008 and February 2013, Meyer wrote and signed as treasurer — and Osborn cashed — 298 checks totaling $505,754. Similarly, between June 2008 and December 2012, Meyer wrote, signed and cashed 17 checks — totaling $29,754, — payable to her personally.   Also, between January 2008 and May 2010, Meyer signed 27 checks, totaling $278,000, payable to Alliance Bank. Osborn used these checks to Alliance Bank to purchase Alliance Bank official checks — made payable to Ashton Holdings, LLC — an entity that Osborn owned. According to James Paliotta, senior investigator – fraud, economic & financial crimes at the Onondaga County District Attorney’s office, the purpose for using these funds to buy Alliance Bank checks made out to Ashton Holdings, was to “obscure the trail of money and make it harder to follow.” Paliotta also determined that the couple used some of the money from these checks to pay legitimate church expenses but pocketed the remaining money. So, authorities couldn’t determine the exact amount Osborn and Meyer stole. Sentencing and restitution On June 5, 2014, Osborn pleaded guilty to two counts of grand larceny in the second degree and one count of grand larceny in the third degree. As we learned from Judge Fahey in the beginning of this article, in December 2014, Osborn was sentenced to five to 15 years in state prison, the maximum punishment under New York State law. He was ordered to pay restitution in the amounts of $392,000 and $81,090. At his sentencing, Osborn said “there was never an intention to deprive the members of the church.” He said he and his wife “had financial issues,” and he made decisions he thought would help. Osborn entered the Franklin Correctional Facility in Malone, New York, on July 9, 2015. His earliest release date is Dec. 15, 2019, according to the New York State Department of Corrections and Supervision. On June 23, 2014, Meyer waived her right to a jury trial and pleaded guilty to one count of grand larceny in the second degree. In December 2014, she received a sentence of three to nine years in state prison and was ordered to pay restitution of $200,000. She entered the Albion Correctional Facility in Albion, New York, on Jan. 20, 2015, and her earliest release date is Dec. 6, 2017. Meyer is listed in the New York State registry of Certified Public Accountants as “not registered.” We don’t know why her license hasn’t been revoked, which would appear to be the proper description based on the instructions outlined in the Office of the Professions page at nysed.gov. According to the New York State Unified Court System, Meyer was disbarred on July 29, 2014. Breach of trust At Osborn’s sentencing, Beth Van Doren, the assistant district attorney for Onondaga County who prosecuted the case, said, “The first question Osborn asked the church when he joined the congregation was which position he could hold that would allow him to be on every committee within the church.” Osborn clearly desired to be put in a position of trust within the church. The church council fortified his position by electing him the chair of the finance committee and granting him the power to oversee several church functions. Meyer’s appointment as church treasurer compounded the situation. A small organization often doesn’t have adequate segregation of duties, but a finance committee can create suitable internal controls over the treasurer’s duty of maintaining the books. However, Osborn’s and Meyer’s tight management of church funds completely circumvented any possible controls. The arrangement enabled the couple to commit and perpetuate the embezzlements. How could this have possibly happened? How can an organization that has amassed a small fortune to further its mission suddenly find itself unable to pay its utility bill? Shouldn’t it have been able to prevent this or at least discover the problem and mitigate its losses? How did the facts and circumstances align to allow this fraud? Unfortunately, this case really isn’t that unusual. Nearly any accountant or fraud examiner can recount a similar situation in which a manager, bookkeeper or board member took advantage of a not-for-profit organization — a church, civic league, youth group or municipality. These unique characteristics enable fraud: A trusting environment. When an organization is small, the members or employees know and trust each other. They often are united in a common activity or desire to accomplish a common mission. They want to think the mission equally motivates everyone. Employees often accept below-market salaries simply because they’re sold on that mission. Also, dedicated volunteers handle some functions. The organization allocates a minimum of resources for administration because every dollar spent on that is one less dollar to accomplish the precious mission. Lack of formal written policies and procedures and little chance of a specific fraud deterrence policy. Again, the organization perceives that it’s better to spend more time accomplishing the mission and less time on writing clear policies. Lack of basic internal controls for safeguarding the organization’s assets, and assuring proper reporting and compliance with outside laws and regulations. Often the organization also lacks separation of duties — one person is performing too many functions, and the operation doesn’t have any checks and balances. If one person can do it all, why bother to hire other people? The organization’s board believes in its mission but lacks the full complement of skills to effectively manage. How could this fraud have been prevented? Any experienced fraud examiner will tell you it’s impossible to prevent all frauds, but all of us certainly are advocates for installing systems that will deter fraud or eliminate the possibility for certain instances of frauds. If the church leaders in this case had implemented key anti-fraud elements, they would’ve prevented the fraud or noticed the cash shortfall much earlier. For example, had the church council or management simply undertaken a formal background check on the couple, Osborn’s prior conviction and numerous legal entanglements would’ve surfaced. These two definitely wouldn’t have ended up in positions of trust. If the church had a more formal system of internal controls and separation of duties, it would’ve prevented the embezzlement of funds or at least discovered them sooner. Simply requiring the bank to mail statements directly to one board member and reconciling them by another would’ve at least prevented the fraud from perpetuating beyond the initial unauthorized withdrawals or possibly prevented the crime entirely if Osborn and Meyer had known they would be discovered. Church leaders should’ve required Osborn and Meyer to periodically report to the board, not just simply assuring them all was well with bogus spreadsheets. If the members of the board of directors had more diverse backgrounds and capable skill sets, perhaps they could’ve installed systems to deter the fraud. Instead Osborn and Meyer led these well-meaning people — with limited financial and managerial expertise —into the devastating scheme. Perhaps if the church had implemented an effective whistleblower policy and/or had a fraud hotline, members of the community who knew about Osborn’s checkered past would’ve come forward and tipped off the church. All not-for-profit organizations, local municipalities and civic groups should know that they are easy targets, and fraudsters — with practiced acting talents — are quite willing to take advantage of them. https://www.acfe.com/article.aspx?id=4294994725GUIDELINES Task 1: Students are expected to discuss briefly the importance of the concept of financial frauds in the present-day context followed by the background of the given case which includes brief summary of the fraud committed and details related to fraud scheme used by the perpetrator(s). Task 2: Students are required to discuss common red flags being associated with the fraud perpetrator in the above case. Task 3: Students are required to critically evaluate the fraud triangle in above case and discuss potential deficiencies. Task 4: This section should succinctly summarize the results of the fraud examination and in terms of lessons learnt from the above analysis.DeliverablesSubmission Submission of the Individual report will be done via Turnitin Link on MOVE. At the time of submission, you need to make sure that the assignment is your own and all the sources have been acknowledged.Is there a word limit (Number of Words ± 10%)?3000What do I need to do to pass? (Threshold Expectations)Information search should be evident and address at least some tasks. Information should support the task. Some sources of information should be contemporary. General understanding of the various issues and also related theoretical background should be evident. Use of a range of appropriate sources should be evident. General critical stance and limited critical evaluation in some areas should be evident. Discussion of the ideas should be clear and the report should be readable. Some compliance to HARVARD STYLE referencing is must. At least few references quoted which are should be in consistent with the amount of literature used in the report.How do I produce high quality work that merits a higher grade?Critical reasoning is consistently evident across the discussions. The tasks should have exemplary discussion and detailed narration Use of a wide range of appropriate and current sources, focusing on research based reviews indicating personal research and critical awareness of their status and relevance. Evidence of exemplary understanding of relevant theory and research. Reference to appropriate theoretical background provides support to the discussion. Illustrations should be provided that amplify the theoretical background The structure should be exemplary. Execution should be excellent. Discussions should be free from grammar or writing errors. A clear layout should augment the presentation. Overall organization of the report should be excellent.How does assignment relate to what we are doing in scheduled sessions?During the class sessions, guidance and help relating to cybercrimes will be given. The class sessions/support sessions should be used to prepare the assignment with the peers. Note that you will also be expected to work outside of the class sessions. How will my assignment be marked?Your assignment be marked according to the threshold expectations and the criteria on the following page. You can use them to evaluate your own work and estimate your grade before you submit. NoCriterionWeighing (%)Sub Standard / No Attempt (0 Marks)Poor (20 Marks)Satisfactory (40 Marks)Good (50 Marks)Very Good (60 Marks)Excellent (70 Marks)Outstanding (100 Marks)1Information & Research20There is no evidence for information search/ Tasks are incomplete.Sources not used to support substantive assertions or argument.Information search is not adequate. Very limited resources are used to discuss the tasks. Limited and uncritical use of a restricted range of sourcesInformation search is evident. There is an attempt to address some tasks. All the tasks lack proper focus in discussion.Although the information supports the task, some of them are not properly analysed and lack paraphrasing at some areas.Relevant information search is evident, but not adequate. There is a good attempt to address the tasks. All the tasks are discussed but one or two tasks lack focus or clarity.Very good usage of variety information from various sources. Contents are properly paraphrased. The usage of information can be better if it relates to the context.All tasks are discussed properly.Excellent application of the relevant information from variety of sources. Excellent usage and quoting of the literature at relevant discussions.All the tasks are discussed astutely with proper focus.Use of a wide range of appropriate sources, indicating critical awareness of their status and relevance.Use of a wide range of appropriate and current sources, focusing on research based reviews indicating personal research and critical awareness of their status and relevance.2Understanding20No evidence of understanding the issues.Limited evidence of understanding the issues.General understanding of the various issues. Some reference to related theoretical background is evident.Good understanding of the various issues. Majority of the tasks show evidence of good understanding of related appropriate theoretical backgroundEvidence of very good understanding of relevant theory and research in all tasks.Evidence of excellent understanding of relevant theory and research. Reference to appropriate theoretical background provides support to the discussion. Some illustrations that support the theoretical background are evidenced in the discussions.Evidence of exemplary understanding of relevant theory and research. Reference to appropriate theoretical background provides support to the discussion. Illustrations are provided that amplify the theoretical background.3Application & analysis35Lack of analysis of information. No discussion is evident.The discussed tasks are completely out of focus.Task are not properly addressed.Limited evidence of critical evaluation of material.Poor analysis of information. Although there is evidence for some discussion, they are discrete and lacking focus. It does not reflect critical application of the concepts to the case.Use of a range of appropriate sources. but without critical evaluation, or missing some significant itemsEvidence of a general critical stance. Evidence of limited critical evaluation in some areas, with some lost opportunities or misunderstandings.There is good evidence for critical analysis and reasoning in some areas.Evidence of critical evaluation in some areas, although some material not evaluated.Use of a wide range of appropriate sources with some critical awareness of their status and relevanceVery good application of the information to the case. There is evidence for in-depth analysis of data. However, all tasks are not consistent in analysis and can be presented in a better manner.Evidence of good critical appreciation and evaluation of relevant theory and research and a systematic attempt to relate it to the topicExcellent analysis of the information and precise application to the case. Critical reasoning is evident while discussion of all the tasks.Evidence of thorough critical appreciation and evaluation of relevant theory and research and a systematic and creative attempt to relate it to the topicCritical reasoning is consistently evident across the discussions. The tasks have exemplary discussion and detailed narration.4Presentation & Structure10The report is unorganized to the point of being virtually unreadable. Lacks cohesion and orderly flow.The assignment has unacceptable failings in structuring and / or clarity of written expressionThe report is difficult to read due to overwhelming errors or misspellingsThough discussion of the ideas is clear, a coherent flow of thought is not evident.The report is unorganized, but can be read. Poor flow of the report structure.The assignment has failings in structuring and / or clarity of written expression, which impair its capacity to communicateFrequent compositional errors or misspellings, but the report can be readEvidence for a coherent presentation is evident, but lacks uniformity throughout the essay.The report is somewhat organized. The flow is not coherent and needs improvement.While the assignment has some failings in structuring and / or clarity of written expression, these do not impair its capacity to communicate.More than occasional errors or misspellings.The report is well organized. There is orderliness in the structure. Coherence is also evident but there is still scope for improvement.A generally well-structured and expressed assignment, that communicate clearly.Well executed. Few grammar or writing errors. Reads easily. Is fairly well organized.The report is well organized with a cohesive discussion. The structure of the report is excellent.An assignment whose clear structure and expression significantly enhances its argumentReads easily. Is well organizedThe structure is exemplary. Execution is excellent. Discussions are free of grammar or writing errors. A clear layout augments the presentation.Excellent overall organisation of the report5Language5The report is difficult to read due to overwhelming errors or misspellingsFrequent compositional errors or misspellings, but the report can be read.More than occasional errors or misspellings, but that does not take away significantly from the quality.Well executed. Few grammar or writing errors. Reads easily.  Overall language is very good in terms of grammar and flow.Execution is excellent. No grammar or writing errors. Reads easilyExecution is outstanding. No grammar or writing errors. Reads easily6References10The references do not clearly comply with the basic requirements of HARVARD STYLE format.The references do not clearly comply with the basic requirements of HARVARD STYLE format. The references are inadequate to support the literature used in the report. Sources used show limited relevance and currency.The report shows some compliance to HARVARD STYLE referencing, but shows many errors.Very few references quoted which are inconsistent with the amount of literature used in the report.Some sources of information are relevant while others are dated.The report demonstrates a basic level of HARVARD STYLE referencing, but still contains major deficiencies. No sophistication is evident i.e. Websites do not follow Harvard Referencing style. Majority of the sources are relevant and current.The report demonstrates a solid understanding of the basic elements of HARVARD STYLE formatting. In-text citations if presented at relevant areas will lend more appropriateness to the report. Sources used to support the discussions are relevant and current.The report demonstrates excellent HARVARD STYLE formatting skills. In-text citations are presented at relevant areas. Consistent use of relevant and current sources that enhance the discussions.Strictly adheres to Harvard Referencing style.Student understands and recognizes the concept of intellectual property, can defend him / herself if challenged, and can properly incorporate the ideas / published works of others into their own work building upon them.Skillful use of credible, relevant and current sources of information that augments quality of discussion. How will my presentation be marked?Your presentation be marked according to the threshold expectations and the criteria on the following page. You can use them to evaluate your own work and estimate your grade before you submit. NoCriterionWeighing (%)Sub Standard / No Attempt (0 Marks)Poor (20 Marks)Satisfactory (40 Marks)Good (50 Marks)Very Good (60 Marks)Excellent (70 Marks)Outstanding (100 Marks)1Responses to Questions40NullDoes not understand the questions responds incorrectly, asks for questions to be repeated, tried to avoid questions.Demonstrates an ability to understand the questions only at the surface level, respond with some explanation, focus and reasoningDemonstrates an ability to understand some of the questions, responds with confidence with good explanation, focus and reasoningDemonstrates an ability to understand majority of the questions, responds with confidence with very good explanation, focus and reasoning.Demonstrates excellent ability to understand the essence of questions, responds with confidence with clear explanation, focus and reasoning.Demonstrates an outstanding ability to understand the essence of questions, responds with confidence with clear explanation, focus and reasoning. Explains beyond what is expected.2Conceptual Understanding40NullTotally lacks understanding of the issues and there is disconnect with the topic to be presented.General understanding of issues is evident with some occasional reference to academic sources..Demonstrates good understanding of issues but lacks clarity in some areas.Demonstrates very good understanding of the issues. Lacks clarity in few areas.Demonstrates excellent understanding of the issues with relevant reference to literature reviewDemonstrates excellent understanding of the issues with relevant reference to literature review3Use of Technical Vocabulary and overall communication skills20NullNo evidence of usage of technical vocabulary.Limited usage of technical vocabulary.Shows signs of nervousness as both content knowledge and presentation is incorrectOccasional usage of technical vocabulary in the answers.Demonstrates poor level of confidence evident from inadequate level of subject knowledge and lack of preparation. No eye contact Limited usage of technical vocabulary.Has displayed adequate usage of technical vocabulary.Demonstrates good level of confidence evident from adequate level of subject knowledge and preparation. Confidence demonstrated through language, expression and body language seems artificial. Rarely keeps eye contactHas displayed frequent usage of technical vocabulary. However there is scope for improvement. Demonstrates very good level of confidence evident from adequate level of subject knowledge and preparation. Confidence demonstrated through language, expression and body language seems natural.Outstanding and expansive use of technical vocabulary while presenting answers. Outstanding confidence evident from command over subject knowledge, preparation. Confidence demonstrated through language, expression and body language. Maintains continuous eye contact

QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPER – NO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *