1. What factors in the WorldCom case support the conclusion that CEO Bernie Ebbers Knew about the financial statement fraud? What factors support his defense that he did not know about the fraud?
Bernie Ebbers Knew about the financial statement fraud because he was the one who encourage others to go into financial fraud because of the stock prices were going down, which was affecting his marginal loan. For that reason, he was trying to sell his stock, but the board of Directors lent him $341 million, along with 2% interest rate. On the other hand, as he never sold his WorldCom stock, which was a showed that he was unaware of the fraud of financial statements and accurate position of WorldCom.
2. If the fraud had not been detected when it was, how long do you think it might have continued and how would it have ultimately been revealed?
If the fraud has not been detected that it might have been gone 10- 20 years undetected. It may have been ultimately detected by the use of checks and balances, and multiple audits through independent auditors. In addition, The US Justice Department should not let WorldCom to go into merger and acquisition as it was creating monopoly. For that reason, they were able to play high.
3. How could the fraud at WorldCom been prevented?
If there would be more checks and balances and segregation of duties, then the fraud has been prevented. In addition, if WorldCom have independent auditor then it would have also prevent fraud.
4. Which one person
Madoff had Complicit knowledge of the fraud that he was obtaining on doing on his client base that they were oblivious to his actual fraudulent Securities, that there actually was no project nor any Securities that they were trading on the behalf of these clients that in an sense it was almost like a pyramid scheme that he would obtain funds from the individual to pay off those investors with the 20% that he guaranteed to give them and then obtained the other 20% from new clients. Explain to them the operation and from the market of how mr. Madoff had actually set out to defraud the clients as well as the Trade Commission U.S. Securities from Bernie L Madoff in the defendants forward from the chairman and head Of the board directors for the NASDAQ stock market interest in in the marketing and maintaining it on Operating the records of fair deals and higher ethics standards that he had been tricking them with Giving them fraudulent information on the firm's activities. The supervisor also advised FBI that on January 7th, 2008 That Mr. Madoff Misrepresented His Holdings and its client base to the SEC Stating that he had between 11 and 25 clients and total approximately 17.1 billion dollars and assets under his management However, he had less clients and he only had approximately 7
GERARD WARRENS willfully and with full intent and knowledge made untrue statements of material facts by stating that (1) HOOPER would receive registered stock representing an equity interest in STEALTH SOFTWARE, LLC; (2) Warrens would make financial disclosures indicating the financial status of STEALTH SOFTWARE LLC; (3) Warrens could rely on Defendants ' statement that STEALTH SOFTWARE, LLC was solvent; (4) Hooper would receive the corporate records and balance sheets from Warren; (5) Warrens would disclose various contracts and other prospective customer deals that had concluded or falsely stated they were concluded; (6) HOOPER would recceive all of the arrears in wages after he made an investment in STEALTH SOFTWARE, LLC; (7)Warrens would dislose at a later date the Board members, officers, owners, shareholders, and managers of all the non-resident codefendents; (8) Warrens had top security clearance but would not divulge what kind; (9) Warrens had invested milions of dollars in the LLC; (10) Warrens had consummated contracts with a number of potental customers which were not true; and (11) that STEALTH had employees other than
He resorted to using the law firm's money for illegal activities. He then suspiciously stepped away before the problem was made known to
Yates held a high position in WorldCom, whereas Vinson was simply the accountant. As the company controller and Vinson’s boss, Yates had the authority to fire Vinson, re-consider her promotion, and begin to dislike her if Vinson decided not to comply with the task. Additionally, Vinson does not question Sullivan’s authority. Since Sullivan was regarded as one of the top Chief Financial Officers (CFOs), Vinson rationalizes her decision by assuring herself that if Sullivan thought making misleading journal entries was okay, it must be the right way. Besides, Sullivan had the most expertise and knew the best financial plan for the company.
Martha Stewart's trading scandal brought significant attention to the role of regulatory bodies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in ensuring the integrity of financial markets. As such, we will examine the contributions of the SEC and the DOJ in investigating and taking legal actions regarding the case, and how their efforts ultimately led to the resolution of the Martha Stewart trading scandal. The Role of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Investigation
If the SEC had followed up and called the DTC, they would have discovered Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, but they didn’t. Furthermore, the team investigating Madoff failed because they were inexperienced; they had no previous experience dealing with a Ponzi scheme (pg. 154) and were untrained in what to look for when investigating
He appears to have put profits ahead of mine safety and health in violation of Federal mine standards. Mr. Blankenship could go to prison for 31 years. (See NBC News) CEO Stewart Parnell of Peanut Corporation of America was sentenced to 28 years in prison in connection with a 2008 salmonella outbreak that killed nine people and sickened 714 others across the U.S. Bernard Madoff is serving 150 years jail time for engaging in a multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme that claimed many celebrity victims. Even former Fed chairman Ben Bernanke had some reservations about prosecutions for the 2008 Great Recession. Individuals were responsible for that debacle not abstract firms.
5- Should have member of the management team know that fraud was happening? Were there any warning signs? It is unknown to what extent Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities' executive team members were aware of the fraud.
In this the investors claim that the company executives encourages the sales staff to report fraudulent earning from fake transactions. Evidence of the fraud, the investors claim, would be found in the emails and the corresponding attachments between sales, sales managers, and accounting. The emails sent between these people would fall under what Bills knows is relevant in the action or at least reasonably likely to be requested during
This proves that throughout the case, Cendant Corporation wasn’t acting fully ethical nor with the desired fiduciary actions to their investors and the auditing team in this case being Ernst&Young. Aside from the trust being broken apart between both, there was never a sign of an internal control inside Cedant. Therefore, there shows that the corporate governance for Cendant Corporation didn’t have signs of existence as well. Most frauds that were occurring before the implementation of the SOX-2002, had top management such as in Cendant that didn’t have care for the ethical performances as much as in today’s corporate world with more regulations in hand by the government. At the end, Cendant had filings against them concerning their corporate governance
However, in the process he realised that people were so trusting and there weren't any guidelines in place to protect investors, he played it out as long as he could. He knew the business and how to orchestrate the movement of money. Madoff controlled all of the money in house. He only hired individuals with little or no knowledge of the business ( ). This was an indicator that Madoff knew that his scheme would eventually catch up to him and didn’t want anyone held liable for his fraudulent practices.
It is very hard to say that SOX would prevented the scandal but they would have being exposed sooner because of the Sarbanes-Oxley section and titles rules and regulation such as; Titles II the auditors partner rotation; Title III, the responsibility or reporting accurate financial corporate reports. They reported depreciation expenses of garbage trucks as a salvage values, and subjective to other assets that did not have any value. Title IV the financial disclosures of financial reports was overstated or understated in some reports to inflates a high profit margin. The Titles VIII, the alteration and destruction of records that would protect the
Bernie Madoff created Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities in 1960 by purchasing penny stocks not listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYE) (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell, 2013). He was a well-respected financier, until his fall from grace. Now he has been convicted of operating a massive Ponzi scheme that went undetected for decades. Prior to the fall of Madoff, his investment firm was a top-rated successful organization.
They wouldn’t also allow the re-election of Ulysses Grant because they were totally against him. Since the New York Sun reported the scandal most of all the investors nearly went bankrupt. They found out they gave some of their shares to more than 30 people in the company after they questioned 13 congress men. Also they only reported that they made only a small amount of money when really they made over 40 million dollars in total profits alone. That’s the money Thomas Durant made with his railroad aka money making machine and also more through out time.
If he had registered with the SEC prior, would charges have come sooner, that we may never know? However, I do believe in part, he did not register with the SEC because of his first-hand knowledge and knowing it would be easier for him to be caught if he