BUS FPX 4068 Assessment 3 Forensic and Non-forensic Audits
- High Quality FPX Sample Assessment
- Step-by-Step Guide to master FPX Assessment
- References (APA Format) for related Assessments
- Connect with Top professors for specific class
- Detailed (FAQs) related to Assessment.
- Express Delivery with in 24 hours.
Assessment Overview:
BUS FPX 4068 Assessment 3: compares forensic and non-forensic inspection issues across three cases: retail check fraud pitfalls, ethical pressures in fiscal reporting (GAAP vs. manipulation), and SOX 404 compliance for very small companies. Focus is on discovery/forestallment controls, legal/ethical reporting, and practical compliance gauged for organizational size.
How to Pass BUS FPX 4068 Assessment 3 Forensic and Non-forensic Audits
- Before the test starts, talk about the differences between forensic and non-forensic audits and what each is used for.
- In Case 1, you will learn about check fraud schemes like washing, laundering, and tampering. Also, find out which jobs are most likely to be affected by these plans.
- Before problems happen, tell people how to avoid them, like checking the POS, dividing up tasks, and making sure reconciliations are done on time.
- For Case 2, look at Heather’s choices under GAAP and explain why lying or saying something too soon is fraud.
- To be moral, be open about losses, make things easy, and build trust with stakeholders over time.
- See if a company with three employees can follow SOX 404 and know what small businesses can and can’t do in Case 3.
- If you follow the rules, keep an eye on roles, and maybe even get audits from outside the company, you can stay on the right side of the law.
- Use a step-by-step forensic method to find threats, make controls, look into them, look for strange things, and fix them.
- Think about the law and what is right and wrong: Follow GAAP, keep your word, and don’t tell anyone your secrets.
- End with useful tips on how to stay safe from fraud, follow the rules for audits, and always be on the lookout.
Sample Assessment:
Case 1:
1. Possible Check Fraud Schemes and Control Processes:
The company could potentially fall victim to colorful check fraud schemes, including check tampering, check washing, or check laundering. Check tampering involves an individual cashing licit checks for particular gain using false identities. Check washing entails chemically altering checks to modify payee names or quantities. Check laundering involves using checks for unauthorized purposes, counting on lax scrutiny of authenticity or delicacy (Hopwood, Leiner, & Young, 2012). Enforcing control processes similar to automated check verification systems at the point of trade or having salesmen enter original checks can discourage similar fraudulent conditioning.
2. Employees in a Position for Check Fraud:
Colorful workers, including salesmen, department directors, general directors, and regulators, may have access to checks and could share in check fraud schemes. Without a verification or responsibility system at the point of trade, a setting where a check was shifted for a fraudulent one becomes grueling.
Case 2:
1. Acceptability of Heather’s Options under GAAP:
None of the options Heather is considering would be respectable under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Conforming the estimated chance of completion to conceal contract losses contradicts GAAP, which authorizes feting losses. Unseasonable profit recognition and using mark-to-request styles are also deceptive and fail to provide stakeholders with accurate fiscal information (Hopwood, Leiner, & Young, 2012).
2. Financial Statement Fraud:
Unseasonable profit recognition and misrelating the chance of completion would constitute fiscal statement fraud. Both conducts misrepresent the company’s fiscal performance and integrity (Hopwood, Leiner, & Young, 2012).
BUS FPX 4068 Assessment 3 Forensic and Non-forensic Audits
- Handling the Situation:
Still, prioritizing honesty and integrity would be consummate if I were in Heather’s position. Telling of the loss of former possessors and engaging stakeholders transparently would be essential. Exploring druthers to compensate for losses, similar to incorporating the defaulted recreational vehicles into the remaining force or considering relocation to Mexico, would be prudent. Decision-making should concentrate on long-term sustainability and maintaining stakeholder trust.
Case 3:
1. Feasibility of SOX 404 Compliance for a Three-Person Company:
Achieving SOX Section 404 compliance for a three-person company is grueling but doable, given special considerations for small companies. Similar companies, distributed as micro-cap companies, must cleave to gauged-down conditions compared to larger enterprises (Hopwood, Leiner, & Young, 2012).
2. General Steps for Compliance:
The siblings must prioritize strong leadership involvement, establish an effective board of directors, and compensate for limited isolation of duties and technological coffers. With smaller coffers, each member must excel in their place, overseeing multiple aspects of fiscal reporting and operations (Hopwood, Leiner, & Young, 2012).
References (APA 7 Format)
- Hopwood, W. S., Leiner, J. J., & Young, G. R. (2012). Forensic accounting and fraud examination (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill. https://capella.vitalsource.com/books/1260492990
- Paull, L. (2018). Provisions for estimated contract losses. LaPorte CPAs & Business Advisors. Retrieved on June 12th, 2022, from https://laporte.com/knowledgecenter/audit-andassurance-services/provisions-for-estimated-contract-losses
Rubric Breakdown
| Criteria | Points | Expectations |
| Identification of Fraud Risks | 20 | Correctly identify check fraud schemes and ethical risks. |
| Control Recommendations | 20 | Suggest effective prevention measures (duties, POS checks, reconciliations). |
| GAAP & Ethical Analysis | 15 | Evaluate financial statement fraud risks and ethical responses. |
| SOX 404 Compliance | 15 | Feasibility and implementation for a small company. |
| Step-by-Step Forensic Approach | 15 | Clear investigation, documentation, and remediation steps. |
| References & Presentation | 15 | Accurate citations, organized structure, and clear writing. |
Step-by-Step Guide
- Identify threat areas—chart processes with cash/check running and profit recognition.
- Design controls—apply isolation of duties, verification at POS, rapprochements, and blessing limits.
- Examiner—run exception reports, surprise cash counts, and trend/rate analyses.
- probe anomalies—save substantiation, interview, trace deals, and document findings.
- Report & remediate—prepare an objective report, notify governance/legal, and strengthen controls.
- Scale controls for size—acclimatize SOX-like controls for small enterprises (rosters, external reviews, stronger oversight).
Frequently Asked Questions
Q. What’s the difference between forensic and non-forensic audits?
Forensic checkups probe fraud and produce fairly defensible substantiation; non-forensic (regular) checkups assess fiscal statement fairness and compliance with GAAP.
Q. What retail fraud risks are common with checks?
Check tampering, washing, phony, and kiting.
Q. Which controls help prevent check fraud?
isolation of duties, point-of-trade verification, obligatory Legs initials, and timely bank rapprochements.
Q. When does accounting become financial-statement fraud?
When an operation designedly misstates earnings estimates (e.g., hiding losses or unseasonable recognition) to mislead druggies.
Q. Can a tiny company comply with SOX 404?
Yes, but it needs gauged controls, strong governance, proven processes, and conceivably external help.
Integrity Note
Note: Only use this assessment example for learning and structure purpose. Do not submit as your own work.
We are an independent resource and are not affiliated with Capella University.