Question: Rationalization for fraud can fall under two categories no harm
Rationalization for fraud can fall under two categories: “no harm” and “no responsibility.” Assume an employee is directed by management to reduce recorded expenses at year-end by insignificant amounts individually, but which are material in total. How might the employee justify her actions if questioned by the auditor with respect to no harm and no responsibility? What stage of moral development in Kohlberg’s model is best illustrated by the employee’s actions? Why?
Answer to relevant QuestionsSome criticize the accounting profession for using expressions in the audit report that seem to build in deniability should the client commit a fraudulent act. What expressions enable the CPA to build a defense should the ...In 2005, the IMA reported the results of a survey of business, academic, and regulatory leaders conducted by the Center for Corporate Change that found the corporation’s culture to be the most important factor influencing ...Audit morality includes moral sensitivity, moral judgment, moral motivation, and moral character. Explain how audit morality plays a key role in determining best audit practice that influences audit performance.1. Explain the rules for accounting for impairment of loans under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (FAS) No. 114, Accounting by Creditors for Impairment of a Loan. Did FCB apply these rules properly?2. Evaluate ...Explain the legal basis for a cause of action against an auditor. What are the defenses available to the auditor to rebut such charges? How does adherence to the ethical standards of the accounting profession relate to these ...
Post your question