Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines MA611 Auditing School Business Course Name Bachelor of Business (Accounting) Unit Code MA611 Unit Title Auditing Trimester 3/2020 Assessment Author Dr Mac...

1 answer below »
PRICE PLEASE


Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines MA611 Auditing School Business Course Name Bachelor of Business (Accounting) Unit Code MA611 Unit Title Auditing Trimester 3/2020 Assessment Author Dr Mac Wright Assessment Type Individual Assignment Assessment Title A Case study in discussing the legal responsibilities of the Auditor Unit Learning Outcomes Addressed: a. Explain and apply the principles, practice and process of auditing to practical situations. c. Compare and contrast the organisation’s and the auditor’s responsibilities for an audit. d. Explain the importance of planning an audit and distinguish the steps involved. e. Identify and critically evaluate the risks inherent in an audit. Weight 20% Total Marks 40 marks Word limit Not more than 1,000 words Release Date Week 3 Due Date 24th December,, 2020 at 5 PM. Submission Guidelines · All work must be submitted on Moodle by the due date (as above) along with a completed Assignment Cover Page. · The assignment must be in MS Word format, 1.5 spacing, 11-pt Calibri (Body) font and 2 cm margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate section headings. · Reference sources must be cited in the text of the Assessment Task, and listed appropriately at the end in a Reference List using APA 6th editionfor the School of Business.https://library.mit.edu.au/referencing/APA Extension If an extension of time to submit work is required, an Application for Special Consideration and supporting documentation must be submitted onlinevia your Academic Management System (AMS) login: https://online.mit.edu.au/ams. The Application for Special consideration must be submitted no later than three (3) working days after the due date of the specific piece of assessment or the examination for which you are seeking Special Consideration. In the case of serious illness, loss or bereavement, hardship or trauma students may be granted special consideration. Academic Misconduct Academic Misconduct is a serious offence. Depending on the seriousness of the case, penalties can vary from a written warning or zero marks to exclusion from the course or rescinding the degree. Students should make themselves familiar with the full policy and procedure available at:http://www.mit.edu.au/about-mit/institute-publications/policies-procedures-and-guidelines/Plagiarism-Academic-Misconduct-Policy-Procedure. For further information, please refer to the Academic Integrity Section in your Unit Description. Assessment Task Description In addition to the Submission Guidelines appearing on page 1, the assignment is to be completed individually. The submission into the specific assignment drop box in Moodle is to be made by each student individually. This assignment is comprised is a single academic paper discussing a case, and is marked out of 40 marks and scaled back to 20%. The marking rubric below sets out the requirements: Principally you will be marked on four components: (1) What happened at Clive Peeters that caused problems, including who held primary responsibility for the shambles. (2) Who was the auditor, and should they have discovered the fraud? (3) Legal issues (4) Ethical issues (5) Format, Presentation Quality and Demonstration of Research (10marks for each component) As mentioned above, the assessment should be presented in an academic paper format. A key aspect in your choice of format/layout should be to ensure you impart your key messages effectively (i.e., complete the requirements) and efficiently (i.e., it should be succinct and take into account the word limit). Make sure all pages are numbered, and the text fits within the margins of your pages. Make sure to include the relevant heading. Required: Discuss the failures of Clive Peeters and the issues surrounding the failure, and the responsibilities of the Audit Firm in regard to the failure. Couch your discussion to cover the four points indicated above. Marking Criteria and Rubric Met requirements of the learning outcomes a, and b to an excellent level (80 to 100%) Met requirement of the learning outcomes a, and b to a very good level (70 to 79%) Met requirement of the learning outcomes a, and b to a good level (60 to 69%) Met requirement of the learning outcomes a, and bto asatisfactory level (50 to 59%) Did not met requirement (0 to 49%) Part 1 (out of 10 marks) Fully researched and thoroughly covered all Requirements in depth and detail Soundly researched and covered all points A good development of all points All points were covered Did not cover all points Part 2 (out of 10 marks) Fully researched and thoroughly covered all Requirements in depth and Soundly researched and covered all points A good development of all points All points were covered Did not cover all points Part 3 (out of 10 marks) Fully researched and thoroughly covered all Requirements in depth and Soundly researched and covered all points A good development of all points All points were covered Did not cover all points Part 4 (out of 10 marks) Proper structure language and grammar and full evidence of supporting research Proper structure and language and good evidence of research Basic structure and grammar and evidence of research Readable language Some evidence of research Poor grammar and little or no research Grand Total Mark (Out of 40) Unit Mark Contribution (Out of 20%) MA611 AuditingPage 2 of 5 © MIT April 2020T2-2018 v1 Assessment Cover Sheet Student ID Number/s: Student Surname/s: Given name/s: Course: School: Unit code: Unit title: Due date: Date submitted: Campus: Lecturer: Tutor: Student Declaration I/We declare that: 1. the work contained in this assignment is my own work, except where acknowledgement of sources is made; 1. certify that this assessment has not been submitted previously for academic credit in this or any other course; 1. I have read the MIT’s Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct Policy Procedure, and I/we understand the consequences of engaging in plagiarism; 1. a copy of the original assignment is retained by me and that I may be required to submit the original assignment to the Lecturer and/or Unit Co-ordinator upon request; I have not plagiarised the work of others or participated in unauthorised collaboration when preparing this assignment. MIT ID Signature Date
Answered Same DayDec 18, 2021MA 611

Answer To: Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines MA611 Auditing School Business Course Name Bachelor of...

Nitish Lath answered on Dec 21 2021
141 Votes
Brief analysis of the Fraud
Clive Peeters Limited was an electrical retailer entity which is registered on ASX. In the year 2007 and 2009 one of the largest frauds had occurred by the
people in senior place of faith in the antiquity of Australia took place in Clive Peeters. The senior financial accountant of the entity committed the fraud of total $19.365 million of the asset of the entity over the period of two years and covered the fraud by the false representation of the payroll related transactions. Afterwards fraud was revealed in the year 2009 Clive Peeters has taken civil action against the Sonya senior financial accountant for recovering the misappropriated assets. Finally the entity had managed to recover $16.3 million and has suffered the net loss of around $ 3 million.
Elements of the Fraud
The main cause of the fraud was that the single person was accountable for the important function of the entity. As per fraud case of Carson and Battersby (2009) the fraud can be noticed prior when the key executive members of the entity not had been so much concentrated on the cost drop plan in response to the unsolved fall in the cash movement of the entity. There are three fundamentals in this fraud which are theft i.e. asset of the entity were acquired by the Sonya; deeds of suppression in which the committer tries to refuge all its fraudulent acts and last one is the conversion where the asset was converted into cash and afterwards it was sent for personal use.
Sonya misappropriated $19 million of the fund of the entity was misappropriated amounting $19 million with the total withdrawal of 90 which includes 125 individual payments to around eight bank accounts. He manipulated the general ledger of the entity through the creation of the normal payroll transaction journal entries. She started the fraud by...
SOLUTION.PDF

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here