https://www.fraud-magazine.com/recap-article19.aspx?id=4295009428In this link u ll find some fraud cases out of which the first case is the case on which u hv to work and i need only 3&4 part to be done
MA617 Forensic Accounting Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines School School of Business Course Name Master of Professional Accounting Unit Code MA617 Unit Title Forensic Accounting Trimester 2/2020 Assessment Author A/Professor M De Martinis Assessment Type Assessment Task 4a; Assignment [Group] Assessment Task 4b; Presentation [Group] Assessment Title Fraud Case Investigation: Learning by Example Unit Learning Outcomes Addressed: a. Describe and explain the process of forensic accounting. b. Present orally and in writing issues and cases in forensic accounting. c. Discuss in groups and solve in groups forensic accounting cases. d. Identify the risks of fraud and plan accounting systems to minimize fraud. e. Understand the links between corporate governance and risk management. Weighting Assessment Task 4a; Assignment [Group]; 20% Assessment Task 4b; Presentation [Group]; 5% Total Marks Assessment Task 4a; Assignment [Group]; 40 marks Assessment Task 4b; Presentation [Group]; 5 marks Word Limit Approximately 2,000 words (for Assessment Task 4a) Release Date Week 6 Due Date Assessment Task 4a; Week 11, Monday, 28 September, 2020 at 5 PM Assessment Task 4b; Week 11, in class. 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 edition for the School of Business. https://library.mit.edu.au/referencing/APA Extension / Special Consideration If an extension of time to submit work is required, an Application for Special Consideration and supporting documentation must be submitted online via 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: https://www.mit.edu.au/about-mit/institute-publications/policies-procedures-and-guidelines/AcademicIntegrityPolicyAndProcedure. For further information, please refer to the Academic Integrity Section in your Unit Description. Assessment Cover Sheet Student ID Number/s: Student Last name/s: Student First name/s: Course: School: Unit code: Unit title: Due date: Date submitted: Campus: Lecturer’s Name: Tutor: Student Declaration I/We declare and certify that: 1. the work contained in this assessment is my/our own work/group work, except where acknowledgement of sources is made; 1. this assessment has not been submitted previously for academic credit in this or any other course; 1. I/we have read MIT’s Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct Policy and Procedure, and I/we understand the consequences of engaging in plagiarism, collusion and contract cheating; 1. a copy of the original assignment is retained by me/us and that I/we may be required to submit the original assignment to the Lecturer and/or Unit Co-ordinator upon request; I/we have not plagiarised the work of others or participated in unauthorised collaboration or contract cheating when preparing this assessment. MIT ID Signature Date For Assessor Use Only (if not marked on Moodle) Name: Position Date: Signature: Marks/Grades: Assessment Task Description You are required to complete the following assessment. Pre-amble Having formed your group, a fraud case, from anywhere in the world, must be selected and approved by the Unit Coordinator. Your selected fraud case must have been reported or appeared in the media for the first time during the calendar year 2019. The Unit Coordinator will require your group to provide evidence of this before approving the selected fraud case. Assessment Task 4a Assignment [Group] (worth 20%) – in the form of a written report · Part (1): Fraud Case Investigation Report, worth 36 marks, · Part (2): Format and Presentation Quality, worth 4 marks. The first part must be completed in approximately 2300 words, and the second part addressed throughout your written report. Part (1): Fraud Case Investigation Report, worth 36 marks Page 1 of your submission MUST be the Assessment Cover Sheet, signed by all group members. The Assessment Cover Sheet can be copied and pasted from page 2 of this document. Complete Part (1) by preparing a written report with a ‘Title Page’ detailing the names and Student IDs of the group members, ‘Table of Contents’, and a ‘Body’ with section headings that clearly address each of the following items for your approved Fraud Case’; (i) Introduction; i.e., a brief clear summary of the key aspects - facts and figures - of your fraud Case and why you chose it. (ii) Background; i.e., using the fraud motivation triangle, an historical account of the fraud Case before the fraud scheme was perpetrated/detected/investigated. (iii) How the fraud was perpetrated; including a discussion of what failed to prevent the fraud scheme. (iv) How the fraud was detected; including a discussion of symptoms, data-driven fraud detection. (v) How the fraud was Investigated; including a discussion of the theft act, concealment investigative methods and conversion investigation methods. (vi) Conclusion; including discussion of the link between corporate governance and risk management, recommendations, lessons learnt. Note, to obtain 70 percent or more for this part, there must be evidence of ‘significant (i.e., quality and quantity) research. By research, this includes finding information about your Fraud Case from reputable sources / websites (e.g., the company’s own website, IBIS (see library), the ASX, (financial) newspapers and academic/professional journal articles, as available from the library’s databases, etc. Therefore, and as per the submission guidelines (on the cover sheet to this assessment task document), it is important that all reference sources / websites used are cited in the text of your report and listed appropriately at the end of the report in a reference list using APA referencing style. Part (2): Format and Presentation Quality, worth 4 marks As mentioned above, in addition to the Assessment Cover Sheet, signed by all group members, your submission should be a written report with a: (i) Tile Page, detailing the name of the Fraud Case and the names and Student ID s of the group members. (ii) Table of Contents (separate page). (iii) ‘Body’ with section headings that clearly address each of the above six items for your approved Fraud Case’. (iv) ‘Reference List’ (separate page). (v) An Appendix that contains the PowerPoint slides in ‘Handout’ format of the Assessment Task 5. Presentation [Group] (see below). A key aspect in your group’s choice of format/layout should be to ensure you impart your key messages effectively (i.e., complete the requirements) and efficiently. It should be written succinctly and in proper English (grammar, punctuation, sentence/paragraph structure). The use of tables, graphs and other types of presentation formats/layout is encouraged. The report should be coherent and so consistency is expected throughout; e.g., formatting, language style, linkages between the requirements (to obtain 70 percent or more), page numbering. Note, groups who split up the items and work independently are likely to have more difficulty accomplishing this objective compared to groups who work on each of the items collaboratively (i.e., as a ‘Forensic Accounting team’). A report that has been put together last minute will be obvious to the marker and, therefore, will earn little, if any, marks for this requirement. Marking criteria: Assessment criteria are shown in the following table. Marks are allocated as follows: Assessment criteria to be met and assessed Detailed Description of the Assessment Criteria Breakdown Marks Criteria 1 Introduction; i.e., a brief, clear summary of the key aspects -facts and figures- of your Fraud Case and why you chose it. 6 Criteria 2 Background; i.e., using the fraud motivation triangle, an historical account of the fraud Case before the fraud scheme was perpetrated/detected/investigated. 6 Criteria 3 How the fraud was perpetrated; including a discussion of what failed to prevent the fraud scheme. 6 Criteria 4 How the fraud was detected; including a discussion of fraud risk symptoms, data-driven fraud detection. 6 Criteria 5 How the fraud was Investigated; including a discussion of the theft act, concealment investigative methods and conversion investigation methods. 6 Criteria 6 Conclusion; including discussion of the link between corporate governance and risk management, recommendations, lessons learnt. 6 Criteria 7 Format and presentation quality; including structure, format/ layout, proper English, coherency/consistency. 4 Total marks 40 Using Technology for Assessment Rationale Activities Technological tools selected This assessment task aims to achieve the following unit learning outcomes; a. Describe and explain the process of forensic accounting. c. Discuss in groups and solve in groups forensic accounting cases. d. Identify the risks of fraud and plan accounting systems to minimize fraud. e. Understand the links between corporate governance and risk management. These are achieved by; · Case study-based learning. · Quality and quantity of research. · Collaborative writing. · Academic Integrity, including avoiding plagiarism. Technological tools include; · online Forum on Moodle. · Library resources, including data bases. · Turnitin. MA617 Forensic Accounting © MIT July, 2020T2 2020 Lasted Updated: July, 2020 Marking Rubric for Assessment: Marking Rubric Criteria/ Grades High Distinction (HD) 80-100% Distinction (D) 70%-79% Credit (C) 60%-69% Pass (P) 50%-59% Fail (N) <50% criteria 1 excellent introduction; i.e., a brief, clear summary of all the key aspects -facts and figures- of your fraud case and very clear reasons(s) presented on why you chose it. evidence of highly significant (quality and quantity) research. very good introduction; i.e., a brief, clear summary of most the key aspects -facts and figures- of your fraud case and clear reason(s) presented on why you chose it. evidence of significant (quality and quantity) research. good introduction; i.e., a brief, clear summary of many the key aspects -facts and figures- of your fraud case and some reason(s) presented on why you chose it. evidence of weakly significant (quality and quantity) research. satisfactory introduction; i.e., a brief, clear summary of some the key aspects -facts and figures- of your fraud case and few reason(s) presented on why you chose it. evidence of some (quality and quantity) research. unsatisfactory introduction; i.e., a brief, clear summary of at most only criteria="" 1="" excellent="" introduction;="" i.e.,="" a="" brief,="" clear="" summary="" of="" all="" the="" key="" aspects="" -facts="" and="" figures-="" of="" your="" fraud="" case="" and="" very="" clear="" reasons(s)="" presented="" on="" why="" you="" chose="" it.="" evidence="" of="" highly="" significant="" (quality="" and="" quantity)="" research.="" very="" good="" introduction;="" i.e.,="" a="" brief,="" clear="" summary="" of="" most="" the="" key="" aspects="" -facts="" and="" figures-="" of="" your="" fraud="" case="" and="" clear="" reason(s)="" presented="" on="" why="" you="" chose="" it.="" evidence="" of="" significant="" (quality="" and="" quantity)="" research.="" good="" introduction;="" i.e.,="" a="" brief,="" clear="" summary="" of="" many="" the="" key="" aspects="" -facts="" and="" figures-="" of="" your="" fraud="" case="" and="" some="" reason(s)="" presented="" on="" why="" you="" chose="" it.="" evidence="" of="" weakly="" significant="" (quality="" and="" quantity)="" research.="" satisfactory="" introduction;="" i.e.,="" a="" brief,="" clear="" summary="" of="" some="" the="" key="" aspects="" -facts="" and="" figures-="" of="" your="" fraud="" case="" and="" few="" reason(s)="" presented="" on="" why="" you="" chose="" it.="" evidence="" of="" some="" (quality="" and="" quantity)="" research.="" unsatisfactory="" introduction;="" i.e.,="" a="" brief,="" clear="" summary="" of="" at="" most="">