Fun & Games Corporation Case Study

Overview:

This case study is designed to test the students' understanding of the materials covered in their accounting classes, as well as to test for fraud awareness.

Given that first year associates are required to exhibit a certain level of analytical skills, the case has been developed to test the students' ability to use Microsoft Excel to analyze data/patterns and draw conclusions.

The "Overview of the Allegation," "Company Structure," "Initial Investigation/Background Facts," and "AP Walkthrough" sections have been provided to get students thinking about how to answer the questions posed to them by Knox LLP in the "Engagement" section.

Research:

The case requires the students to analyze both the information that was provided by Knox LLP during the meeting and the information that was provided by Fun & Games Corporation by way of a document request from Knox LLP. The documents received through the document request were:

1. AP data for all payments/vendors from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2014for the Games department.
2. Games department budget numbers versus actualspend
   1. The Company implemented a new budget process in FY 2013 and,therefore, will only be able to provide budget data for FY 2013 and FY2014.

Collaboration:

Each team will be comprised of three students. While collaborating with other teams is encouraged, the final deliverable should reflect the team's personal work product.

Summary of Findings:

The summary of findings should be summarized in a two page memo to Knox LLP with exhibits (Font Style- Arial, Font Size- 12, and Line Spacing- 1.5).

Company Overview

Fun & Games Corporation ("Fun & Games" or the "Company") is a local toy store that sells all types of children's toys and is based in Alexandria, Virginia. The Company has been in business since 1950 with multiple locations in the DC area. The Company has continued to grow and has beat its revenue projections for the past few years.

Scenario

You are a Partner at Knox LLP ("Knox"), a boutique forensic accounting firm located in Washington, D.C. On 1/2/2015 you received a call from your long-time friend Howard Green, the chief legal officer at the Company, requesting a meeting with you on 1/5/2015, regarding an alleged fraud scheme committed by Carla Cosgrove, an employee at Fun & Games. Duringthe meeting, you learned the followingfacts:

Overview of the Allegation:

1. Two weeks ago, Harold Lewis, CFO of the Company, received a phone call from the Company's bank explaining a check drawn on its operating account had been flaggedas potentially fraudulent and an employee of the Company had presented the check for deposit.
2. The check in question was for $50,000.25 and had been issued to one of Fun &Games' largest vendors, Buddy the Elf ToyStore.

Company Structure:

1. Fun & Games has multiple departments based on toy type. The departments are as follows:
   1. Games
   2. Building Sets &Blocks
   3. ActionFigures
   4. Dolls
   5. StuffedAnimals
   6. Pretend Play &Dress-Up
   7. OutdoorPlay
2. Each department furthers breaks down costs based on a cost center or a specific category within thedepartment.
3. The specific cost center codes and titles for the Games department are asfollows:
   1. G101 - Card games
   2. G102 - Boardgames
   3. G103 -Puzzles
   4. G104 - Electronic & interactivegames
   5. G105 -Magic
   6. G106 - Travel games &novelties
   7. G107 - GameRooms
   8. G108 -Marketing
   9. G109 -Taxes
   10. G110 -Telephone
   11. G111 -Internet

1. G112 -Electric
2. G113 - OfficeSupplies

Initial Investigation/Background Facts:

After receiving a phone call from its bank, the Company performed an initial investigation and uncovered the following facts:

1. Buddy the Elf Toy Store is a legitimate vendor of Fun & Games and the check in question was a quarterly payment due on Invoice Number 78320 as part of the Company's recently updated contract with Buddy the Elf ToyStore.
2. The invoice in question was retrieved from the Accounts Payable ("AP") department and had been approved and submitted for payment by Carla Cosgrove of the Games department.
3. Carla had requested that the check for Buddy the Elf Toy Store should be returned to her by the AP department once it was issued and she would mail it to thevendor.
4. The Company contacted Buddy the Elf Toy Store and Buddy the Elf Toy Store confirmed that all other invoices paid to Buddy the Elf Toy Store were legitimate and the funds had beenreceived.
5. The investigation involved discussions with Buddy the Elf Toy Store and the Company's Accounts Payable department. During the internal discussions it was discovered that Carla often didn't followprocedures.
6. After finding out that Carla didn't adhere to procedures, the Company sent her hometo complete their investigation without herpresent.
7. The Company established that Carla Cosgrove was acting fraudulently andterminated her from the Company. At the time of her termination her annual salary was$65,000.
8. Carla Cosgrove joined the Company in 2010 and has always been a budget directorin the Games department of the Company.
9. Carla's regular duties included overseeing the budget process for each of the cost centers within the department and working with the Company's Chief Budget Directorto integrate the Games department budget within the overall budget for the Company, attending quarterly budget meetings and attending the yearly budget presentations to Company management forapproval.
10. In approximately 2011, Carla had been delegated additional responsibilities from the head of the Games department, Harvey Peacock, to include approving and processing vendor payments and employee expensereimbursements.
11. Carla was a well-liked employee and had made friends with a number of the staff in the APdepartment.
12. The Company learned a number of items about Carla from the initialinterviews conducted with employees, including thefollowing:
    1. Carla was an avid traveler and had taken numerous trips in the past few years to theCaribbean.
    2. Carla and her husband had recently built a large home in Kensington,MD.
    3. Carla drove a Lexus SUV with a license plate that read"Flowers."
    4. Carla had lots of expensive looking jewelry and designer hand bags,which employees had assumed werefake.

13. The Company learned Carla had purchased a floral business in approximately 2013 called Flower Patch Incorporated. Preliminary internet searches listed the address ofthe business at 732 Independence Way, Kensington,MD.

AP Walkthrough:

You met with Harold Lewis, the CFO, to obtain an understanding of the AP process.

1. The Company's Fiscal Year end is June30.
2. The Company processes all vendor payments on a weekly basis on Thursday. Tohave a vendor paid that week, the invoice must be received by AP by Tuesday atnoon.
3. The invoice must contain the signature of the authorized signor for each department to process the invoice. The authorized signor is by default the head of each department; however, the authority can be delegated. If signatory authority is delegated, the nameof the delegate must be provided to the APdepartment.
4. The invoice must also contain a cost center code for it to be appropriately allocatedin the system for budget and expensepurposes.
5. The invoices are entered into the system and reviewed against the batch sheet by the Controller for accuracy. Once the Controller signs-off, the checks are issued onFriday morning and mailed by the AP department the sameday.
6. The Company allows departments to request a check be returned to the requestor and mailed. Harold explains this is not a common occurrence but happens on rareoccasions when the department wants to include correspondence or something else with the payment.
7. Harold explains in discussions with AP personnel he learned the followinginformation:
   1. Carla requested all checks for the Games department be returned to her for mailing.
   2. Carla would at times bring invoices to AP past the deadline for the weekly processing, explaining there was an urgency for processing and apologizefor missing thedeadline.

Engagement:

After the preliminary meetings are concluded, you meet again with Howard and he tells you the Company is concerned that Carla had submitted other fictitious invoices. You are being retained to perform a forensic investigation and the Company would like you to answer the following questions:

1. Identify any red flags that you uncovered during yourinvestigation?
2. If you identified any potentially fraudulent vendor(s), which vendor(s) arethey?
3. Quantify the amount(s) identified as potentially fraudulent in the Games DepartmentAP Dataprovided?
4. Describe the perceived opportunities that existed (Fraud Triangle) and how the fraud could have been perpetrated and coveredup.
5. What controls could be implemented to help prevent other potential fraudulentactivity from occurring in thefuture?