Question

Assume the role of an expert witness who has been asked by a court of law to assess whether and to what extent Koss management and Grant Thornton were responsible for failing to prevent or detect the embezzlement and accounting fraud. Write a two-page professional opinion summarizing what you believe went wrong, and whether and how Koss management and Grant Thornton failed in their responsibilities. Cite specific examples to support your conclusion. Conclude your report with an assessment of whether Koss management and Grant Thornton should be held at least partly responsible for failing to prevent or detect the fraud.

Answer 1

Answer:

It shows up, that the extortion may have proceeded for a more extended period. Amex wound up suspicious that sachdeva's close to home bills were being settled from the KOSS corporate record and reached michael koss, CEO. This prompts the extortion being revealed. After it came to notice of michael, it was accounted for to SEC and further examinations were begun.

The job of evaluators was to do cautious review, take after all PCAOB examining gauges and express their assessment in view of the proof and review strategies. It appears they may have neglected to do as such. GT dependably issued an unfit assessment on money related proclamations to Koss. At first, GT declined to acknowledge the fault for carelessness and asserted that planning and reasonable introduction of money related proclamations and additionally outlining the inner controls are the obligation of administration. Further, they asserted that they were not doled out for ICFR review. In light of its size, koss hasn't been required to have its outside evaluator survey the adequacy of the organization's interior powers over its money related announcing. Be that as it may, later on, they conceded their errors and carelessness and settle remuneration worth $8.5 million. In view of an investigation of what happened the way that the misrepresentation was not releasing their obligations appropriately. As much as it would be attractive for reviews to reveal extortion reviews are not intended to reveal misrepresentation. Money related proclamation reviews once in a while distinguish extortion since identifying misrepresentation isn't the motivation behind a monetary articulation review.

In the event that organizations need to connect with somebody to identify misrepresentation, at that point they have to employ scientific bookkeepers particularly to perform tests went for distinguishing and forestalling extortion. They can't hand-off on the inspectors. A few gatherings are of the assessment that examiners should change their work with a specific end goal to recognize more misrepresentation.

Be that as it may, as specified prior, this isn't the motivation behind a money related explanation review. Reviewers are locked in to review and express an expert and autonomous supposition on money related proclamations. They are not locked in to recognize extortion.

The obligation to distinguish extortion lies with the organizations and their administration, and if administration wishes to identify misrepresentation, they have to take measures well beyond the standard money related explanation review.