The fact that the prosecutor works in the interests of the state can be seen as the underlying factor here. The prosecutor can get away with misconduct; because if it were proven that the prosecutor was actually responsible for misconduct it would greatly undermine the goal of the state, which is to seek justice. If the prosecutor is misconducting themselves then it gives the impression that the prosecutor is not interested in justice, but more so a conviction, whether it be done so legally and ethically, or not. Prosecutorial misconduct happens, and
Not to mention WIRETIME is unethical in their actions. Computer hacking is considered criminalizing under The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Under this, BUGusa would have the right to obtain compensatory damages and court ordered relief or other just relief. Steven and WIRETIME may be sued for the executed plot performed because it is unlawful to purposely access computer information without authority to do so, under section 1030 (a)(2) – Unlawful Access to Obtain Information. If he is caught in the act, he can be charged under Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
In the case of “Cynthia Cooper and WorldCom”, the accounting activity taking place clearly violated the ACIPA Code of Professional Conduct. Accounting dishonesty is the key activity involved in this case. It was noted in this case, that these unethical practices had taken place in upper authority, even down to lower level employees. Early on in this case, accounting statements were supplied; which raised red flags. The accounting statements were capital spending schedules, which differed in spending amounts (Mintz & Morris, "Case 2-1 Cynthia Cooper and WorldCom," 2011).
Grant Thornton should have cross-referenced these forms and looked for any discrepancies. The decision for Grant Thornton to rely heavily on the delivery receipts was reckless on their part. An “auditor must obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence by performing audit procedures to afford a reasonable basis for an opinion regarding financial statements under audit.” (Prelecture Slide 14) The appropriateness of the evidence defines the validity or reliability and in order for this to be true it needs to be objective and free from bias. (Prelecture Slide 14) The delivery receipts failed to provide this validity and reliability because they were
Break Breaker Inc. to some extent obey with some legal rules, but failed to comply with principles of morality and community, contribute to the society by producing honest high quality services, and account the consequence of damaging their reputation. I think that Solomon’s argument is fairly accurate, but everyone’s views are different on this. Some actions may be acceptable to some but unacceptable to others. Ethics provides the bigger picture in the business life and it must be understood. In my opinion, nothing is more dangerous to a business than a bad public image caused by being unethical.
(b) What are the ethical issues involved in this situation? The ethical issues involved in this situation pertain to following accepted accounting principles. Violating the generally accepted accounting principles to satisfy a short-term personal or company would create misleading financial statements. This situation would therefore be unethical. Robbin Industries is jeopardizing itself by not properly reporting the advertising costs.
As the standards are now stated, some critics believe that they provide little more than an excuse to conduct inadequate audits. Evaluate this criticism of the 10 generally accepted auditing standards. The criticism of the 10 GAAS by some critics, is founded in the belief that by the GAAS being more specific, then they would thereby eliminate some difficult audit decisiona dn provide a line of defense for a CPA firm charged with conducting an inadequate audit. However, highly specific requirements could turn auditing into mechanistic eveidence gathering, devoid of professional judgement. Therefore, from differing points of views, there is probably
Does an actual agency relationship exist? "Right to Control Test" RULE: One who represents that another is his servant or other agent and thereby causes a third person justifiably to rely upon care or skill of such apparent agent is subject to liability to third person for harm caused by lack of care or skill of one appearing to be servant or other agent, as if he were such HOLDING: The court reversed the grant of summary judgment because there was enough evidence to permit a jury to find that the corporation was vicariously liable for the franchisee's alleged negligence. There was sufficient evidence to raise an issue of actual agency because the corporation had the right to
(a) In jurisdictions following the Ultramares doctrine, under what conditions can auditors be held liable under common law to third parties who are not primary beneficiaries? (b) How do jurisdictions that follow the legal precedent inherent in the Rusch Factors case differ from jurisdictions following Ultramares? (a) Under Ultramares dorctrine, ordinary negligence is insufficient for liability to third parties because the lack of privity of contract between the third party and the auditor unless the third party is a primary beneficiary, However, if the auditor had been grossly negligence and committed constructively fraud or fraud during his or her audit, he or she could be held liable to third parties who are not primary beneficiaries. In Phar-Mor case, Coopers & Lybrand’s Attorneys argued that Coopers & Lybrand’s had only been ordinary negligence and tried to convince the jury that Coopers & Lybrand’s could not discover the fraud because Phar-Mor’s management was involved in that massive fraud and worked together to hide evidence. In addition, the investors and creditors of Phar-Mor did not have a written agreement with the auditor, Coopers & Lybrand’s, defining Coopers & Lybrand’s duty.
The first reason is Government Misconduct a. According to the book Innocent: Inside Wrongful Conviction Cases, Government misconduct includes Errors in identification procedures, Coercing false confessions, Lying or intentionally misleading jurors about their observations, Failing to turn over exculpatory evidence to prosecutors, Providing incentives to secure unreliable evidence from informants 2. According to the book False Convictions by Tim Green, the second reason many wrongful convictions happen is Bad Lawyering a.