MAA 763 Governance and Fraud – T1 2016 Second assignment
Generic instructions
Due: Monday 23rd May, 2016 (11.59 pm) - Week 11
Weight: 30% of the overall assessment
Word Limits: 3,000 words (Part 1 - 1,500 words, Part 2 - 1,500 words)
Rubric: a copy of the Marking Rubric is available on CloudDeakin.
This is an individual written assignment with two parts.
Learning Outcomes which this assessment desires to achieve includes:
GLO 1 - discipline specific knowledge; GLO2 – written communication; and GLO 4 - critical thinking skills and GLO 5 problem solving.
Part 1 Answer the following questions based on the case study of Enron:
Note: You are required to watch “Enron the smartest guys in the room” (available on cloudsite) as background understanding and answer the questions below.
(i) Analyse the corporate culture at Enron and its management’s behaviour. Include in your analysis, the normative theory of ethics which you would consider most relevant in driving the decision making at Enron.
(8 Marks)
(ii) At which stages on Kohlberg’s theory of cognitive moral reasoning and development do you consider Jeff Skilling is at? Justify your answer.
(5 Marks)
Part 2
There have been numerous corporate fraud cases in the past decades, most of which caused the companies affected to subsequently experience financial difficulties and embarrassment. Select three examples of a fraud case, one from each location namely, Australia, Asia and
European (including United Kingdom) countries. Each case study must involve the following
Page 1 of 2
different types of fraud: one example of financial statement fraud, one example of asset misappropriation and one example of corruption. Address the following questions regarding each case study:
(i) Describe the type of fraud, how it was conducted, the extent to which the fraud occurred (duration, amount), how the fraud was uncovered and recommend ways in which the board, internal auditor and external auditor could have assisted in
fraud prevention and detection. (8 marks)
(ii) Explain the causes of each fraud selected using the fraud triangle and discuss how in each case, the fraud affected the fraudster, the victim organisation and
regulators. (6 marks)
When answering the questions, the answers must be specific and relevant to the facts of each of the case studies.
Three (3) marks will be awarded for overall grammar and expression.
(8 + 5 + 8 + 6 + 3 = 30 marks)
Submission Details
• There is no need for a table of contents, an executive summary or an introductory section, but ensure all questions are clearly labelled.
• Mark allocation is explained in the marking rubric.
• 3,000 words in total (not including reference list).
• Harvard style of referencing to be employed.
• Written in Calibri or Verdana font
• Written in font size 12 for body writing; headings and block quotes may have different sizes
• Include page numbers
• Line spacing of 1.5 or double spacing
• Only electronic softcopy of the assignment is required and must be submitted into the ‘assignment dropbox’ by the due date.
• Late submission will not be marked unless extension is granted prior to the due date.
Page 2 of 2