Write a two, double-spaced paper synthesizing your reading and summarize the following points at the end of
Meadow Soprana reading. Summarize your reading and answer the following question. Support your argument with 3 or more citations.
a. How well did Juan manage the interview?
b. How well did Juan carry out the overall inquiry?
c. What might Juan have done to facilitate this effort?
d. What is Juan’s assessment of Stan’s responses?
Your paper will be graded on following criteria:
1. Spelling and grammar - 5 points
· No errors 5 points
· 1-10 errors 3 points
· More than 10 errors 0 points
2. In-Text Citations- 5 points
· No errors 5 points
· 1-5 errors 3 points
· More than 5 errors 0 points
3. Content - 10 points
· Multiple sources to establish a context and a developed view point - 10 points
· 1 - 2 sources that limits the perspective of the papers -5 points
· 1 source or no sources that show the paper is limited to your opinions or experiences - 2 points
Meadow Soprana Meadow Soprana is working as an analyst for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and has been assigned to a case in which the suspect is believed to be engaged in a rather large drug-dealing operation behind the sham business Chubby-After Covid. Her first assignment is to perform a net worth method on Walter Wite., the sole proprietor of the unincorporated business. Meadow prepared a net worth method using the information she had collected that follows. Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Assets Cash on hand $500 $750 $900 Cash in bank 3,000 12,500 15,000 Vehicles 30,000 90,000 120,000 Real property: Store 250,000 250,000 Real property: Homes 350,000 575,000 Total assets $33,500 $703,250 $960,900 Liabilities Vehicle loans $20,000 $ 70,000 $ 85,000 Mortgages 290,000 450,000 Total liabilities $20,000 $360,000 $535,000 Income Income from business $ 85,000 $ 97,000 Total income $ 85,000 $ 97,000 Expenditures Vehicle payments $15,000 $ 15,000 Mortgage payments 55,000 190,000 Additional living eexpensesexpenses 100,000 135,000 Total expenditures $170,000 $340,000 1. After Meadow completed her analysis, Walter’s attorney raised an objection. Meadow asked to meet with Walter again, and at that meeting Walter told her that he believes that the cash on hand amounts that were used in the projection were too low. Although he had provided the amount to her earlier, he now believes that it was much higher than the amounts used and seems to recall that he had about $200,000 “stashed away” in case the economy crashed. When Meadow asked him about the source of the $200,000, Walter shrugged and said, “Part of it was an inheritance from my dear old Aunt Lydia, and the balance was just some money I had saved.” How should Meadow respond to this new information (i.e., would she want additional information from Walter), and what are the sources of evidence that she needs to follow up on his assertion? Juan Drapper Juan Drapper is a forensic accountant who has been engaged to investigate a case of electronic fraud at Crazyguys, a company that operates a chain of wholesale restaurant supply stores in the New York area. Peggy Owow, Crazyguys’s controller, first contacted Rob. She tells him that she’s discovered that one of several employees working in the main office has been stealing company blank checks. The main checkbook is normally kept locked in the office desk of the CFO’s secretary. Only the CFO, the secretary, two accountants, and the company janitor normally have access to the CFO’s office suite.Peggy discovered the problem in a routine reconciliation of the bank statement against the cash disbursements ledger. The reconciliation revealed two paid checks in the amounts of $1,324 and $1,726, both made payable to and cashed by Sterling Crooper. Peggy’s follow-up investigation revealed that both checks had been cashed in the drive-thru window of Crazyguys’ bank, and on both occasions the teller had written Sterling’s driver’s license number and address on the back of the checks. Peggy reported the two checks to the check fraud division of the local district attorney’s office. Two weeks later, she received a call from one of the investigators. He had visited Sterling’s residence and found that he had been very ill and immobile for several months. It seemed apparent that Sterling was the victim of identity theft and had nothing to do with cashing the stolen checks. “We see this all the time,” said the investigator. “We have the videos of the person cashing the checks.” He was obviously wearing a wig and sunglasses. He also knew exactly how to position his head to minimize his exposure to the bank’s surveillance camera. “What about a license plate number?” Peggy asked. “Did that show up on the video?” “Yes, but it was unreadable. This guy was a real professional. It appears that he put some kind of reflective coating on the license plate to confuse the camera.” Peggy was really frustrated. Her preliminary conversations with the bank led her to believe that Crazyguys would have to eat the losses because a company employee was obviously involved in the scheme. Even worse, she had a strong feeling that the problem would happen again. There was really no way to keep the bank from cashing the checks, and next time the losses could be even worse. Peggy discussed the problem with Joan Hottaway, the CEO. She strongly insisted that Peggy focus on catching the crook because doing that was more important than taking a chance that the problem might happen again. She replied that she wanted to place a hidden surveillance camera in the CFO’s office, but Joan refused because she was afraid of the possible consequences of spying on her CFO whose family connections were important to Crazyguys’s survival. “No, I want you to gather evidence from what you have already,” Joan said. “Hire a forensic accountant and let the accountant provide some evidence as to who did it. If that evidence is good, then I’ll consider installing a spy camera.” Juan was hired to conduct a preliminary investigation that involved a handwriting analysis of the checks. He was not a handwriting expert, but he quickly found that there was no obvious correspondence between any of the handwriting on the bad checks to the handwriting of any of the employee suspects. He concluded that he needed to interview each of the suspects and perhaps obtain a confession. Juan decided to conduct the first interview with Stan Pizza, the CFO’s secretary. Both he and Peggy considered Stan to be the prime suspect. Juan conducted the interview in an empty conference room. He sat directly across from him on the other side of the table. “Hello, I’m Juan Drapper,” he said to him. “I’m a certified fraud examiner from the Prime Suspect Accounting firm.” I need to ask you only a few questions. Stan stiffened. “Please don’t worry; you’re not being accused of doing anything wrong. I’m just here for a routine investigation.” His reassurance did not seem to help, and Stan only looked more nervous. Juan wondered if Stan was acting guilty. “Do you know what I am investigating?” Rob asked. Stan shook his head back and forth, still sitting straight up in his chair like a lamppost. “Someone stole checks from your boss’s desk,” Rob told him. “Are you a policeman?” he asks. Juan tried to speak in a calm and reassuring voice, “No, just an accountant.” Stan began to cry softly, but he remained upright and stiff. “Why are you crying?” Juan asked. “I don’t want to lose my job. I have two kids in private school, and my wife and I can barely make ends meet.” Juan decides that Stan was acting very guilty and decided to get right to the heart of the matter. “Ok,” he said. “We do have information that points straight to you. You might as well confess. Help me out, and I’ll see if I can convince your boss not to press charges.” Stan became very quiet, and for a time Rob heard only the hum of the overhead florescent lights. Finally, Stan spoke. “You’re accusing me. I want a lawyer, and I’m not going to talk to you. And I’ll sue both you and my company if anything happens to me.” He got up and walked out of the room. How well did Juan manage the interview? How well did Juan carry out the overall inquiry? What might Juan have done to facilitate this effort? What is Juan’s assessment of Stan’s responses? Write a two, double-spaced paper synthesizing your reading and summarize the following points at the end of Meadow Soprana reading. Summarize your reading and answer the following question. Support your argument with 3 or more citations. How well did Juan manage the interview? How well did Juan carry out the overall inquiry? What might Juan have done to facilitate this effort? What is Juan’s assessment of Stan’s responses? Your paper will be graded on following criteria: 1. Spelling and grammar - 5 points · No errors 5 points · 1-10 errors 3 points · More than 10 errors 0 points 2. In-Text Citations- 5 points · No errors 5 points · 1-5 errors 3 points · More than 5 errors 0 points 3. Content - 10 points · Multiple sources to establish a context and a developed view point - 10 points · 1 - 2 sources that limits the perspective of the papers -5 points · 1 source or no sources that show the paper is limited to your opinions or experiences - 2 points