Case 1 Mr. Eatough feared that his job was in jeopardy, which is why when he audited W.R. Grace & Co financial statements and noticed the reserve that was not properly accounted for and did not call it fraud. Due to this issue, I would advise Mr. Eatough to report this situation to the higher up management or to the Board of Committees at SEC for his job to not be at risk. This is disobeying the IIA’s IIPPF code of ethics and performance standards. The IIA’s IIPPF code of ethics under the Integrity principle states that “Shall not knowingly be a party to any illegal activity, or engage in acts that are discreditable to the profession of internal auditing or to the organization” (Pg. 2-7) this is one of the actions Mr. Eatough is taking part of if he does not report it to the committee. This leads to breaking the IIA’s IIPPF performance standards under which you must report periodically to senior management and the board of the internal audit activities purpose, authority, responsibility, and performance relative to this plan (Pg.2-21). These are the reasons why I would consider Mr. Eatough to report this situation as he is breaking many rules under his job profession, which can place his career at more risk. Case 2 A. Three specific Rules of Conduct relevant to this case are: 1) …show more content…
The ethical dilemma that Mark faces could have been avoided by Comstock’s management choices. Comstock management should have chosen an internal auditor who has the knowledge and skills applicable to the internal auditor position. Mark reached out to Gail who is the internal auditor of the company for a decision as to what he should report and Gail is exactly like other employee’s who care for their own personal needs. Gail is no help to Mark as an internal auditor they must follow the IIA’s IIPPF code of ethics and standards. Gail is breaking these rules because she has no prior training to this role and was promoted to develop a better understanding of operating