Overview
1. Forensic Accounting
(5 pages-NOT INCLUDING THE TITLE AND REFERENCE PAGE) (APA format) (in-text citations are a must) (No Plagiarsim) (No Use of Artificial Intelligence) (Case is attached)
Fraud Triangle and Red Flags
Read the following scenario:
FutureFocusTech (FFT) was founded a few years ago as a tech company. A big issue for FFT was developing the technological systems necessary to support its rapidly expanding user base. Furthermore, due to the rapid expansion in recent years, many of its systems had been added hastily, resulting in poor integration and questionable data integrity. Consequently, FFT’s CEO announced an initiative to integrate all systems and increase the quality of internal data. In compliance with this initiative, FFT purchased an expensive and complex billing system called CloudBill, which would automate the billing for thousands of Internet accounts via credit cards.
During the integration, CloudBill, in collaboration with a major credit card company, created a phony credit card number that could be used by developers and programmers to test the functionality and integration of the CloudBill system. Moreover, this credit card number was fully functional in "live" environments, so testers and developers could ensure functionality without being required to use actual personal or company credit card numbers. The activity on this card was not monitored. The integration went smoothly; however, it created thousands of corrupt accounts that required fixing.
Sean, the manager of the Operations Department, was responsible for the resolution of all data integrity issues. His team was tasked with fixing all corrupt accounts created by the launch and integration of the CloudBill system. As a result, Sean was given the phony credit card number, which was kept safely in his desk drawer.
A top performer on the Operations team was a 32-year-old male named CJ Newsom. CJ had worked in Operations for more than a year and was making $15 per hour, the same salary as when he was hired. He was an introvert working to support a family and put himself through school. CJ was the most technologically savvy individual on the team, and his overall systems knowledge exceeded that of his manager, Sean. CJ was brilliant in creating more efficient tools and methods to repair corrupted accounts. Therefore, CJ was tasked with conducting training for new employees and updating team members on new processes and tools that he had created. As a result, he quickly became a trusted and valuable team member. Sean gave him, and the other team members, the phony credit card number to increase the productivity of the team.
However, after six months of working at FFT, CJ received an official reprimand from the company for using the company system to access websites containing pirated software and music. The FBI investigated and determined that CJ had not been a major player in the piracy. Therefore, CJ was quietly warned and placed on a short-term probation. Tyler was asked to write a warning letter for the action; however, after a brief conversation with Ethan, Tyler determined that Ethan's intentions were good and Sean never officially submitted the letter because CJ was a trusted employee and elevated the overall performance of the team.
A few months after the piracy incident, Sean noticed some changes in CJ's behavior:
- CJ's computer monitor was repositioned so that his screen was not visible to coworkers.
- CJ had the latest technological innovations including a new smartphone, newest Play Station, a new laptop, a tablet and a new car entertainment system.
- CJ was going out to lunch more frequently.
- CJ frequently used multiple fake usernames and passwords for testing purposes.
Prepare a detailed analysis of the scenario by incorporating your responses to the following in well-developed paragraphs (do not use a question-answer format):
- Analyze the case using the three elements of the fraud triangle.
- Discuss some of the red flags that might indicate that fraud exists in the scenario.
- Discuss what Sean could have done to eliminate some, or all, of the opportunities for fraud.
Requirements:
- Write a paper of 5 pages in length, not counting the title and reference pages, which you must include.
- Use terms, evidence, and concepts from class readings, including professional business language.
- Cite at least 3 sources for this assignment, outside of the textbook. The CSU Global Library is a great place to find resources.
- Format your paper according to CSU Global Writing Center.
- Start with the links under the Research Help and Writing Help tabs on the CSU Global Library's homepage if you need assistance with writing style. (The Writing Center [or Library] link can be found in the left side navigation panel of Canvas).
Review the week's CT Assignment grading rubric for more information on expectations and how you will be graded.
Rubric
ACT510 Mod 4 CT (2)
| ACT510 Mod 4 CT (2) | ||
| Criteria | Ratings | Pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRequirements | 10 to >8.0 ptsMeets ExpectationIncludes all of the required components, as specified in the assignment. 8 to >6.0 ptsApproaches ExpectationIncludes most of the required components, as specified in the assignment. 6 to >4.0 ptsBelow ExpectationIncludes some of the required components, as specified in the assignment. 4 to >0 ptsLimited EvidenceIncludes few of the required components, as specified in the assignment. | 10 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent | 10 to >8.0 ptsMeets ExpectationDemonstrates strong or adequate knowledge of the materials; correctly represents knowledge from the readings and sources. 8 to >6.0 ptsApproaches ExpectationSome significant but not major errors or omissions in demonstration of knowledge. 6 to >4.0 ptsBelow ExpectationMajor errors or omissions in demonstration of knowledge. 4 to >0 ptsLimited EvidenceFails to demonstrate knowledge of the materials. | 10 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical Analysis | 25 to >20.0 ptsMeets ExpectationProvides a strong critical analysis and interpretation of the case study provided, particularly as it relates to fraud red flags and safeguards against fraud. 20 to >15.0 ptsApproaches ExpectationSome significant but not major errors or omissions in analysis and interpretation. 15 to >10.0 ptsBelow ExpectationMajor errors or omissions in analysis and interpretation. 10 to >0 ptsLimited EvidenceFails to provide critical analysis and interpretation of the information given. | 25 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSources / Examples | 10 to >8.0 ptsMeets ExpectationSources or examples meet required criteria and are well chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination. 8 to >6.0 ptsApproaches ExpectationSources or examples meet required criteria but are less‐than adequately chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination. 6 to >4.0 ptsBelow ExpectationSources or examples meet required criteria and are poorly chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination. 4 to >0 ptsLimited EvidenceSource or example selection and integration of knowledge from the course is clearly deficient. | 10 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDemonstrates college-level proficiency in organization, grammar and style. | 10 to >8.0 ptsMeets ExpectationProject is clearly organized, well written, and in proper format as outlined in the assignment. Strong sentence and paragraph structure; few errors in grammar and spelling. 8 to >6.0 ptsApproaches ExpectationProject is fairly well organized and written, and is in proper format as outlined in the assignment. Reasonably good sentence and paragraph structure; significant number of errors in grammar and spelling. 6 to >4.0 ptsBelow ExpectationProject is poorly organized; does not follow proper paper format. Inconsistent to inadequate sentence and paragraph development; numerous errors in grammar and spelling. 4 to >0 ptsLimited EvidenceProject is not organized or well written, and is not in proper paper format. Poor quality work; unacceptable in terms of grammar and spelling. | 10 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDemonstrates proper use of APA style | 10 to >8.0 ptsMeets ExpectationProject contains proper APA formatting, according to the CSU Global Writing Center, with no more than one significant error. 8 to >6.0 ptsApproaches ExpectationFew errors in APA formatting, according to the CSU Global Writing Center, with no more than two to three significant errors. 6 to >4.0 ptsBelow ExpectationSignificant errors in APA formatting, according to the CSU Global Writing Center, with four to five significant errors. 4 to >0 ptsLimited EvidenceNumerous errors in APA formatting, according to the CSU Global Writing Center, with more than five significant errors. | 10 pts |
Total Points: 75
2. Forensic Accounting
(4 pages) (APA format) (in-text citations are a must) (No Plagiarsim) (No Use of Artificial Intelligence) (Case is attached)
Data Mining
Review the attached case titled “Careful Construction, Inc. (Data Mining)” (PDF)Download “Careful Construction, Inc. (Data Mining)” (PDF) and the exhibit below it. Answer the four questions that follow in that document.
Requirements:
- For question 1, create a chart in Excel using Benford’s Law and copy the chart to Word. Interpret the result.
- For questions 2 to 4, provide responses in the Word document after question 1.
- Total number of pages for the answers to the questions must be at least 4pages in length (double-spaced), not counting the title and reference pages, which you must include.
- Use terms, evidence, and concepts from class readings, including professional business language.
- Cite at least 3 sources for this assignment, outside of the textbook.
Review the week's CT Assignment grading rubric for more information on expectations and how you will be graded.
Rubric
ACT510 Mod 5 CT (2)
| ACT510 Mod 5 CT (2) | ||
| Criteria | Ratings | Pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRequirements | 10 to >8.0 ptsMeets ExpectationIncludes all of the required components, as specified in the assignment. 8 to >6.0 ptsApproaches ExpectationIncludes most of the required components, as specified in the assignment. 6 to >4.0 ptsBelow ExpectationIncludes some of the required components, as specified in the assignment. 4 to >0 ptsLimited EvidenceIncludes few of the required components, as specified in the assignment. | 10 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent | 20 to >16.0 ptsMeets ExpectationDemonstrates strong or adequate knowledge of the materials; correctly represents knowledge from the readings and sources. 16 to >12.0 ptsApproaches ExpectationSome significant but not major errors or omissions in demonstration of knowledge. 12 to >8.0 ptsBelow ExpectationMajor errors or omissions in demonstration of knowledge. 8 to >0 ptsLimited EvidenceFails to demonstrate knowledge of the materials. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical Analysis | 25 to >20.0 ptsMeets ExpectationProvides a strong critical analysis and interpretation of fraud detection and the tools and data used for fraud monitoring and risk management. 20 to >15.0 ptsApproaches ExpectationSome significant but not major errors or omissions in analysis and interpretation. 15 to >10.0 ptsBelow ExpectationMajor errors or omissions in analysis and interpretation. 10 to >0 ptsLimited EvidenceFails to provide critical analysis and interpretation of the information given. | 25 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSources / Examples | 10 to >8.0 ptsMeets ExpectationSources or examples meet required criteria and are well chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination. 8 to >6.0 ptsApproaches ExpectationSources or examples meet required criteria but are less‐than adequately chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination. 6 to >4.0 ptsBelow ExpectationSources or examples meet required criteria and are poorly chosen to provide substance and perspectives on the issue under examination. 4 to >0 ptsLimited EvidenceSource or example selection and integration of knowledge from the course is clearly deficient. | 10 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDemonstrates college-level proficiency in organization, grammar and style. | 5 to >4.0 ptsMeets ExpectationProject is clearly organized, well written, and in proper format as outlined in the assignment. Strong sentence and paragraph structure; few errors in grammar and spelling. 4 to >3.0 ptsApproaches ExpectationProject is fairly well organized and written, and is in proper format as outlined in the assignment. Reasonably good sentence and paragraph structure; significant number of errors in grammar and spelling. 3 to >2.0 ptsBelow ExpectationProject is poorly organized; does not follow proper paper format. Inconsistent to inadequate sentence and paragraph development; numerous errors in grammar and spelling. 2 to >0 ptsLimited EvidenceProject is not organized or well written, and is not in proper paper format. Poor quality work; unacceptable in terms of grammar and spelling. | 5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDemonstrates proper use of APA style | 5 to >4.0 ptsMeets ExpectationProject contains proper APA formatting, according to the CSU Global Writing Center, with no more than one significant error. 4 to >3.0 ptsApproaches ExpectationFew errors in APA formatting, according to the CSU Global Writing Center, with no more than two to three significant errors. 3 to >2.0 ptsBelow ExpectationSignificant errors in APA formatting, according to the CSU Global Writing Center, with four to five significant errors. 2 to >0 ptsLimited EvidenceNumerous errors in APA formatting, according to the CSU Global Writing Center, with more than five significant errors. | 5 pts |
Total Points: 75