ZZZZ Best Company Fraud: Case Study

One of the main defenses E&Y took during the early stages of the HealthSouth suit was the fact that the SEC had no well-defined rules with regards to audit-related practices. Another defense was the mere fact that E&Y never faced a criminal indictment for the HealthSouth fraud. This was mainly due to the statute of limitations placed on securities fraud. It sets it at the earlier of (a) 2 years after the discovery of the facts constituting the violation or (2) 5 years after such violation. Thus, the DOJ was unable to file criminal charges against the firm because the partner on the audit (G. Marcus Neas) was “unaware” of the fraud in 1993.

LDDS started with about $650,000 in capital but soon accumulated $1.5 million in debt since it

Without a question the BOD should have placed a high degree of reliance on Andersen, which at the time was one of the most prestigious worldwide accounting firms. The auditors should have known the kind of accounting taking place in Enron. In my opinion, Andersen knew, at least to some extent, the company’s financial condition. However, Enron was already too deep under water that blowing the whistle so late would have created problems for Andersen as well. According to the case, on 02/05/01, Andersen held internal meeting during which it addressed the company’s accounting from and oversight of the LJM partnership. Andersen never discussed these concerns with the Audit and Compliance Committee. Although the BOD has its faults, it should have been able to rely on Andersen’s work.

The amount listed is the enrollment agreement was 10,020.00 which gives a difference of :

The word “fraud” was magnified in the business world around the end of 2001 and the beginning of 2002. No one had seen anything like it. Enron, one of the country’s largest energy companies, went bankrupt and took down with it Arthur Andersen, one of the five largest audit and accounting firms in the world. Enron was followed by other accounting scandals such as WorldCom, Tyco, Freddie Mac, and HealthSouth, yet Enron will always be remembered as one of the worst corporate accounting scandals of all time. Enron’s collapse was brought upon by the greed of its corporate hierarchy and how it preyed upon its faithful stockholders and employees who invested so much of their time and money into the company. Enron seemed to portray that the goal of corporate America was to drive up stock prices and get to the peak of the financial mountain by any means necessary. The “Conspiracy of Fools” is a tale of power, crony capitalism, and company greed that lead Enron down the dark road of corporate America.

1. There are numerous differences between performing a review and actual audit on the financial statements, but the major one is that the review does not contemplate obtaining an understanding of internal control structure. Also, a review does not assess control risk, tests of accounting records and responses to inquiries by obtaining corroborating evidence through inspection, observation or any other audit procedure. It can point out significant matters of the financial statements but does not provide assurance of their accuracy. The issue with ZZZZ Best case is that the auditors review was not sufficient enough to review any misstatements on the financial statements. Ernst & Whinney never questioned the internal control, reviewed

3. In testimony before Congress, George Greenspan reported that one means he used to audit the insurance restoration contracts was to verify that his client actually received payment on those jobs. How can such apparently reliable evidence lead an auditor to an improper conclusion?

Did the confidentiality agreement that Minkow required Ernst and Whitney to sign improperly limit the scope of the ZZZZ Best audit? Why or why not? Discuss general circumstances under which confidentiality concerns on the part of a client may properly affect audit planning decisions. At what point do client imposed audit scope limitations affect the type of audit opinion issued?

This paper explores the ZZZZ Best Company which was begun by a 16 year old individual who was able to pull the wool over the eyes of many customers, investors and auditors. This paper will define the difference between review and audit when it comes to financial reports, comments on the procedures provided with regard to the management assertion of occurrence, verification of payments for jobs and how they can lead auditors to improper conclusion, the purpose of predecessor-successor auditor communications, as well as whom needs to initiate the communication and information that needs to be obtained. The paper also addresses the limitations of the confidentiality agreement and how and when

Ernst & Whinney audit firm suffered tremendously from the backlash of ZZZZ Best’s case. One of the issues stemming from ZZZZ Best’s case is the difference between a review and an audit as evidence by civil suit filed by a California bank against the firm. The bank claimed that its decision to grant ZZZZ Best’s loan was based on the opinion of Ernst & Whinney review of ZZZZ Best’s financial statements period ending July 31, 1986. The case was ruled in favor of Ernst & Whinney as the audit firm had expressly stated in their report that it was not issuing an opinion and the bank should not have rely heavily on the review report. Also, ZZZZ Best was a public company at the time, a review of its

The video “Cooking the Books” discussed the ZZZZ Best case of fraud, it tells how and why fraud was perpetrated by Barry Minkow and why it was undetected for so long. According to the video, ZZZZ Best was founded by Barry Minkow in 1982; when he was sixteen years old, it started as a carpet cleaning company. But, due to high competition in the industry, low entry barriers, and bad internal control, this young entrepreneur started to have cash flow problems, thus creating a shortage of working capital. As a result of the financial pressure, he started to commit fraud by creating false accounts receivable and sales, false documents (using photocopies of real

The Case Summaries for Phar-Mor Inc. Fraud, Waste Management Scandal, & Enron Scandal and Answers

He created fake insurance restoration contracts for ZZZZ Best. This scheme was undetected by Greenspan, the company’s auditor, prior to going public. Greenspan believes that had performed his due diligent as an auditor, however Minkow had covered his tracks. Greenspan had reviewed the backup documents of the jobs, which Minkow had counterfeited. Greenspan had also contacted Tom Padgett, principal officer of Interstate Appraisal Services. Little did he know, Padgett is part of Minkow’s scheme. Minkow had created Minkow had created fake companies; he had his friend Padgett as a principal officer of them. Greenspan also missed the red flags because there were money coming in as payments to the jobs. Later it was revealed that the deposits were just an internal

The perfect fraud storm occurred between the years 2000 and 2002 involving two of the largest energy and telecom corporations in the United States: Enron and WorldCom. It was determined that both organizations fraudulently overstated assets, created assets from expenses or overstated revenues, costing investors billions of dollars and resulting in both organizations declaring bankruptcy (Albrecht, Albrecht, Albrecht & Zimbelman, 2012). Nine factors contributed to fraud triangle creating this perfect fraud storm, and assisting management in concealing the fraud until exposed and rectified.

The greatest opportunity for Minkow to commit fraud was ZZZZ Best’s lack of financial supervision. Lack of internal control facilitated manipulation of company’s assets and transactions. It gave the CFO the opportunity to falsify the documents and to create fictitious transactions. These transactions created formidable revenues on the company’s books and made it easy to borrow money from banks. The weak external audit was the other opportunity that allowed Minkow to commit fraud. The auditor was not familiar with the company and its related parties. In addition, the auditors placed too much trust in management produced documents and failed to verify key transactions. These two important reasons gave Minkow an opportunity to commit fraud.