Case 1.1 - Enron Corporation

1104 Words5 Pages
Case 1.1 - Enron Corporation Q1. In my opinion, the parties to be most at fault for the “crisis of confidence” are 1) Top Executives of Enron Corporation: Top Executives like Kenneth Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, Andrew Fastow, Richard A Causey etc. jointly made-up Enron’s publicly reported financial results and making misleading statements about the Company’s business and financial position in order to make Enron the world’s greatest company. 2) Arthur Andersen (Enron’s Public Accounting Firm): Besides being Independent Auditing Firm Anderson also provided consulting services to Enron. As a result, they allowed Enron to use those fraudulent statements for 15 years. The auditing firm has the responsibility to assess the risk of material fraud. But they failed to do so. They failed to report the questionable decisions regarding SPEs, the lack of internal control etc. Q2. Three types of consulting services that audit firms have provided to their audit clients in recent years according to Section 201 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act are 1) Providing Internal Audit Services – It would be difficult for the Auditing Firm to question the firm’s internal control that they had provided. 2) Designing Information Systems for the company – It would be impossible for the Audit Firm to remain unbiased while assessing the system that they had created. 3) Providing Actuarial Services – It would be risky for the Auditing Firm to question the financial impact of risk of a decision in which they also participated. Q3. Professional Auditing Standards that are violated are listed below 1) General Standard No. 2: According to AICPA “The auditor must maintain independence in mental attitude in all matters relating to the audit.” Considering the fact that “Andersen earned approximately $52 million in fees from Enron during 2000, only $25 million of which was directly linked to the 2000 audit”

More about Case 1.1 - Enron Corporation

Open Document