Eddward T. Herron , Evan Shough , J. Alexander Smith
{"title":"Under the Radar: A conversation about evidence circumvention, manipulation, and fabrication","authors":"Eddward T. Herron , Evan Shough , J. Alexander Smith","doi":"10.1016/j.jaccedu.2022.100797","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This case story is based on a real conversation between two auditors as one wrestles with the idea of leaving their job and trying to commit their own fraud. This case can be used to initiate discussion of strengths and weaknesses of audit evidence, explore the components of the Fraud Triangle along with other factors and discuss the ethical dilemmas that many may face in their professional careers. The story highlights the ethical dilemma and the rationalization process of one party while also discussing their perceived ability to commit a crime and cover it up. As the two experienced auditors discuss the scheme, they discuss the very real weaknesses in how auditors perform their tasks and how audit evidence can be manipulated and circumvented by capable and determined parties. The epilogue of this story contains a further discussion of other unintended consequences of choosing a life of deception and fraud.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":35578,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Accounting Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Accounting Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0748575122000318","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This case story is based on a real conversation between two auditors as one wrestles with the idea of leaving their job and trying to commit their own fraud. This case can be used to initiate discussion of strengths and weaknesses of audit evidence, explore the components of the Fraud Triangle along with other factors and discuss the ethical dilemmas that many may face in their professional careers. The story highlights the ethical dilemma and the rationalization process of one party while also discussing their perceived ability to commit a crime and cover it up. As the two experienced auditors discuss the scheme, they discuss the very real weaknesses in how auditors perform their tasks and how audit evidence can be manipulated and circumvented by capable and determined parties. The epilogue of this story contains a further discussion of other unintended consequences of choosing a life of deception and fraud.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Accounting Education (JAEd) is a refereed journal dedicated to promoting and publishing research on accounting education issues and to improving the quality of accounting education worldwide. The Journal provides a vehicle for making results of empirical studies available to educators and for exchanging ideas, instructional resources, and best practices that help improve accounting education. The Journal includes four sections: a Main Articles Section, a Teaching and Educational Notes Section, an Educational Case Section, and a Best Practices Section. Manuscripts published in the Main Articles Section generally present results of empirical studies, although non-empirical papers (such as policy-related or essay papers) are sometimes published in this section. Papers published in the Teaching and Educational Notes Section include short empirical pieces (e.g., replications) as well as instructional resources that are not properly categorized as cases, which are published in a separate Case Section. Note: as part of the Teaching Note accompany educational cases, authors must include implementation guidance (based on actual case usage) and evidence regarding the efficacy of the case vis-a-vis a listing of educational objectives associated with the case. To meet the efficacy requirement, authors must include direct assessment (e.g grades by case requirement/objective or pre-post tests). Although interesting and encouraged, student perceptions (surveys) are considered indirect assessment and do not meet the efficacy requirement. The case must have been used more than once in a course to avoid potential anomalies and to vet the case before submission. Authors may be asked to collect additional data, depending on course size/circumstances.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
