Although not mentioned in this case, the plaintiff that sued Marshall maintained that he had been negligent in supervising Rojas while she was assigned to the Ryden engagement. That negligence, according to the plaintiff, had contributed to Rojas’s decision to embezzle funds from Ryden. Briefly describe the supervisory responsibilities that the U.S. auditing standards impose on senior personnel assigned to an audit or accounting services engagement. To what extent does a supervisor on such engagements have a responsibility to prevent his or her subordinates from engaging in criminal activity?
Answer to relevant QuestionsThe appellate judge who reviewed the lower court opinion in this case observed that Marshall may have been “morally obligated” to warn Rojas’s new employer of her prior criminal conduct. Explain the difference between ...Vaughn obviously questioned Walker’s personal integrity. Is it possible that one can fulfill the responsibilities of a professional role while lacking personal integrity? Why or why not?What measures can accounting firms take to ensure that time budgets do not interfere with the successful completion of an audit or become dysfunctional in other ways?Does the AICPA’s Code of Professional Conduct prohibit auditors from developing friendships with client personnel? If not, what measures can auditors take to prevent such friendships from interfering with the performance ...Identify the accounting standards and concepts that dictate the proper accounting treatment for sales returns. How were these standards and concepts violated by Ligand?
Post your question