BUS FPX 4068 Assessment 3

Case 1:

1. Possible Check Fraud Schemes and Control Processes:

The business can be a victim of various check fraud schemes, such as checking, checking, or laundering money. Check-terminal involves an employee cashing the legitimate check for personal gain under a false identity. The control washing enhances the ability of check companies to alter the penalty name or zodiac sign. Czech check fraud consists of utilizing the check for illegal purposes, depending on the Lux probe for authenticity or accuracy (Hopwood, Leiner, and Young, 2012). Utilizing control procedures like automated check verification systems on sales or initial obtained checks of the seller can avoid such fraudulent activities.

2. Employees in a Position for Check Fraud:

Different employees, such as sellers, department heads, general managers, and checkers, may have access to checks and may be involved in check-fraud schemes. Without a system of verification or responsibility at the point of sale, it is difficult to determine where a check was exchanged for fraud.

Case 2:

1. Acceptability of Heather’s Options under GAAP:

No other measures estimate the heather; it will typically not be acceptable according to the approved accounting principles (GAAP). Reversing the rough percentage of the completion of the contract deficit contradicts the inconsistencies of GAAP, which acknowledges the loss. It is also deceptive to apply income recognition and field-to-market approaches in advance and not give stakeholders correct financial information (Hopwood, Leiner, and Young, 2012).

2. Financial Statement Fraud:

Financial information will be accounting fraud to be dishonestly reporting the percentage of income recognition and applying revenue. The two acts have the presentation of incorrect company financial outcomes and integrity (Hopwood, Leiner, and Young, 2012).

BUS FPX 4068 Assessment 3 Forensic and Non-forensic Audits 

3. Handling the Situation:

If in Heather’s position, honesty and integrity would be given utmost priority. It would be imperative to disclose the loss of the former owners and enwrap the stakeholders in a transparent manner. Detection of alternatives to cover up for losses, i.e., the addition of normal recreational vehicles to the leftover inventory or taking into account transfer to Mexico, would be acceptable. Choice should concentrate on long-term stability and keep stakeholders’ confidence intact.

Case 3:

1. Feasibility of SOX 404 Compliance for a Three-Person Company:

It is not easy for a three-person company to obtain SOX section 404 compliance, but it is achievable; special consideration is accorded to small companies. These companies that fall under microcap companies should have down-scale requirements as opposed to large companies (Hopwood, Leiner, and Young, 2012).

2. General Steps for Compliance:

Siblings ought to favor a robust leadership team, create a capable board, and make up for limited segregation of duties and technical resources. With fewer resources, every member must excel in their functions and oversee numerous angles of financial reporting and operations (Hopwood, Leiner, and Young, 2012).