Detecting Management Fraud in Public Companies

Professional auditing standards discuss the three key “conditions” that are typically present when a financial fraud occurs and identify a lengthy list of “fraud risk factors.”

Fraudulent financial reporting is one form of corporate corruption and may involve the manipulation of the documents used to record accounting transactions, the misrepresentation of accounting events or transactions, or the intentional misapplication of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) (Crumbley, Heitger, and Smith, 2013). Examples of fraudulent schemes befitting of this category abound and usually involve financial statement items that have been misclassified, omitted, overstated, undervalued, or prematurely recognized. One case involving CEO Bill Smith of Moonstay

2 Managing fraud risk: The audit committee perspective Fraud in a fi nancial statement audit

Internal fraud consists in “a type of fraud that is committed by an individual against an organization. [Furthermore], a perpetrator of fraud engages in activities that are designed to defraud, misappropriate property, or circumvent the regulations, law, or policies of a company”[8]. Not only has the incidence of internal fraud increased in frequency because of the availability of sensitive information such as client details or confidential business documents; moreover, this type of fraud is found in various types of organizations, ranging from corporations, public service institutions and financial institutions. Our analysis will concentrate on the most common and prolific types of internal fraud, namely identity theft, insider trading, loan fraud and wire fraud. Interestingly, PriceWaterhouseCooper conducted a survey that revealed that the “demographics of a typical fraudster are as follows: males (85% of cases), 31-50 years (72% of cases), reached high-school level (50%), Bachelor’s or post graduate degree (50%) and middle or senior management (52%)”[9].

In fraud committed against organizations, the victim of fraud is the employee’s organization. In frauds committed on behalf of an organization, executives usually are involved in some type of financial statement fraud; typically, to make the company’s reported financial results appear better than they actually are. In this second case, the victims are investors in the company’s stock. A third way to classify frauds is via the use of the ACFE’s occupational fraud definition, “the use of one’s occupation for personnel enrichment through the deliberate misuse or misapplication of the employing organization’s resources or assets” (ACFE, 2010). The ACFE includes three major categories of occupational fraud: asset misappropriations involves the theft or misuse of the organization’s assets, corruption involves the wrongful use of influence in a business transaction in order to procure benefits contrary to their duty to their employer, and fraudulent financial statements involving falsification of an organization’s financial statements for personal gain.

This research paper is being submitted on March 10, 2013, for Tiffany Krogman, A340/ACG3085 Section 03, Advanced Auditing Concepts & Standards.

Most word references characterize fraud as a bogus representation of true data. Whether that false data is given by expressing false words, deluding claims, or by concealing or disguising uncovered data, it is viewed as fraudulent because of the beguiling nature. In spite of the fact that it is deceptive to give false data, people even in real companies will attempt to cover their misfortunes by reporting false data. Taking after many years of monetary frauds and outrages including executives and officers at a portion of the biggest organizations in the United States, Congress established the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Cheeseman, 2013). Congress ordered the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX Act) to shield customers from the fraudulent exercises of significant partnerships. This paper will give a brief history of the SOX Act, portray how it will shield general society from fraud inside of partnerships, and give a presumption to the viability of the capacity of the demonstration to shield purchasers from future frauds.

The Model of Trust Enhancement was established to enhance and maintain the public’s trust in the accounting profession. Over the last two decades, the ethics of the accounting profession has been questioned and public trust destabilized, in particular for auditors, due to the Enron debacle. The fact that an auditing firm would assist their clients with publishing an inadequate set of financial statements shows their willingness to violate laws and regulations (Sims & Brinkmann, 2003). According to the textbook, “Because trust is essential, even the appearance of an accountant’s honesty and integrity is important. The auditor, therefore, must not only be trustworthy, but he or she must also appear trustworthy” (Duska, Duska & Ragatz, 2011, p. 116). The majority of statements filed inadequately have a substantial impact on the credibility of the accounting profession as a whole. Sullivan (n.d.10) states that a CPA must possess a high level of trust, by applying professional judgment and enhancing the three trustworthy characteristics (ability, benevolence, and integrity) when resolving accounting ethics dilemmas (slide 3).

In recent year we have seen numerous companies fail as a result of these bad and/or fraudulent practices. In 1998 the publicly traded Waste Management Company falsely reported 1.7 billion in earnings. They got caught when the new CEO and management team went through the books.

The manipulation of accounts fraud scheme is generally fulfilled by employees in top management positions and it usually involves making understatements or overstatements on financial statements making it very hard to detect. The process followed as Troy Adkins, (2015) explains is very simple. The financial statements are either overstated to show different figures in the earnings on the income statements making them look better than they actually are or the earnings in the current periods are manipulated in such a way that the revenue is understated or they inflate the current year’s expenses. The second process includes making the financial statements look worse than they are in reality. Deloitte, (2009) explains a number of ways which the accounts are manipulated where as one of the ways is to manipulate the reported earnings directly. They further explained that overstating the

According to Daniel F. Dooley (2008), a member of the Commercial Fraud Taskforce, financial fraud with private middle-market companies is on the rise. In fact, Mr. Dooley believes that he has seen more instances of fraud in the past two years than in the previous ten. He notes seven areas in which financial fraud has increased over the past few years:

The auditing firm has been in engagement with the company throughout the period when the fraud was being committed. One of the common and clear indicators of possible fraud was the company’s cash flow statement. The company experienced positive growth in its profits from the year 1996 through to the year 1998. However, a close analysis of the cash flow statement shows that the company had experienced negative figures of cash flow from both operating and investing activities and positive cash flow from financing activities which would not sufficiently offset the negative cash flows from operating and investing. It is therefore evident

As the WMI accounting fraud case shows, change exposes organizations to considerable financial fraud risks. The top officials used acquisitions and merger as means to perpetuate this fraud. This financial fraud took place due to the organizational breakdown of internal and external audit controls. As a result, the top management was able to commit this massive fraud without facing any resistance. It never occurred to them that they were violating the law because what mattered to them was pocketing as much as they could.

Fraudulent, erroneous, and illegal acts committed by a public company, usually at a managerial or executive level, have been a very serious problem for many years and have prompted development of strict and updated regulations, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, in an attempt to prevent these occurrences. Unfortunately, these new or updated regulations are not enough to prevent these acts from happening, thus not alleviating the auditors of their responsibility to detect fraud. Some methods that management and auditors can employ to prevent and detect fraud, errors, and illegal acts are: improving knowledge, improving skills,

Combating fraud in the private sector is a difficult task. Trying to combat fraud in the public sector is daunting. In 1999 15.7% of the American workforce were employed by a government entity (federal, state, and local).[1] Mirroring society, government will have its share of perpetrators. The difference from the private sector is in the scope of the fraud committed, the loss of the public trust, the blaring headlines from news media, and difficulty in making necessary changes to combat the problems.