https://www.coursehero.com/u/file/p1etvsl/internal-controls-and-selling-computers-to-an-unapproved-remarketera-related/#question

Please check the link for the fraud case, below is the questions

1. Analyze the difference between preventive and detective controls and give an example of how each could have been used by CIT with respect to this fraud.

2. Three duties must be segregated in an organization; analyze how Niakan's role at CIT violated segregation of duties.

3. Analyze how the five components of COSO Internal Control-Integrated Framework could have been used to prevent fraud at CIT.

4. In 2004, CIT had a net income of $754,000,000. Equipment Leasing was 16 percent of CIT's total assets. The stolen computers were valued at $637,000. Is the amount of this fraud considered to materially impact the financial statements? If not, what other audit implications can this fraud have? How would the auditor test for something like this?

5. How has the auditor's responsibility for detecting fraud changed since October 2001, when Niakan was promoted to Director of Asset Management?

6. Explain the three aspects of the fraud triangle and how these factors enabled fraud to occur at CIT

7. What were the red flags that signalled fraud was occurring at CIT? What should auditors, fraud examiners, and colleagues pay attention to that could be indicative of fraud?

8. What techniques did Werle use to uncover the fraud? Should she have done anything differently?

9. Explain the professional (AICPA) and regulatory (congressional) actions related to the auditors' responsibility for detecting fraud that have occurred since 2000. Consider these actions in light of the highly publicized frauds that came to light in the early 2000s and the profession's and government's responsibility to the investing public.