1. Explain the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rationale to charge Cardillo executives with each of the following violations:
a. making false representations to outside auditors
b. failing to maintain accurate financial records
c. failing to file prompt financial reports with the SEC
d. violating the insider trading provisions of the federal securities laws
2. Determine who was in violation or compliance of the AICPA’s Code of Professional Conduct in this case study and analyze the key reasons why they were or were not in compliance. Provide support for the rationale.
3. Analyze the actions taken by Cardillo’s outside auditors and evaluate the level of efficiency of the audit risk management in this case study. Provide support for the rationale.
4. Determine whether or not the five (5) components of internal control were being followed. Support the response with at least two (2) examples.
5. Create an argument for or against whether auditors have a responsibility to assess the judgment of the decisions made by Cardillo’s management. Support the argument.
6. Use at least two (2) quality academic resources in this assignment. Note: Wikipedia and similar type Websites do not qualify as academic resources.
Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:
• Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
• Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.
The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:
• Analyze the process and regulatory requirements for professional ethical decision making.
• Analyze the critical factors of business, audit, and planning risks, and the process of managing these risks in audit engagements.
• Analyze an audit framework and assessment process for evaluating the effectiveness of internal controls related to financial reporting.
• Use technology and information resources to research issues in auditing.
• Write clearly and concisely about auditing using proper writing mechanics.
Grading for this assignment will be based on answer quality, logic / organization of the paper, and language and writing skills, using the following rubric found here.
Grading for this assignment will be based on answer quality, logic / organization of the paper, and language and writing skills, using the following rubric.
Points: 280 Assignment 2: Cardillo Travel Systems, Inc.
Criteria Unacceptable
Below 70% F Fair
70-79% C Proficient
80-89% B Exemplary
90-100% A
1a. Explain the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rationale to charge the Cardillo executives’ violation of making false representations to outside auditors.
Weight: 5% Did not submit or incompletely explained the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rationale to charge the Cardillo executives’ violation of making false representations to outside auditors. Partially explained the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rationale to charge the Cardillo executives’ violation of making false representations to outside auditors. Satisfactorily explained the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rationale to charge the Cardillo executives’ violation of making false representations to outside auditors. Thoroughly explained the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rationale to charge the Cardillo executives’ violation of making false representations to outside auditors.
1b. Explain the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rationale to charge the Cardillo executives’ violation of failing to maintain accurate financial records.
Weight: 5% Did not submit or incompletely explained the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rationale to charge the Cardillo executives’ violation of failing to maintain accurate financial records. Partially explained the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rationale to charge the Cardillo executives’ violation of failing to maintain accurate financial records.
Satisfactorily explained the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rationale to charge the Cardillo executives’ violation of failing to maintain accurate financial records.
Thoroughlyexplained the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rationale to charge the Cardillo executives’ violation of failing to maintain accurate financial records.
1c. Explain the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rationale to charge the Cardillo executives’ violation of failing to file prompt financial reports with the SEC.
Weight: 5% Did not submit or incompletely explained the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rationale to charge the Cardillo executives’ violation of failing to file prompt financial reports with the SEC. Partially explained the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rationale to charge the Cardillo executives’ violation of failing to file prompt financial reports with the SEC. Satisfactorily explained the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rationale to charge the Cardillo executives’ violation of failing to file prompt financial reports with the SEC. Thoroughly explained the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rationale to charge the Cardillo executives’ violation of failing to file prompt financial reports with the SEC.
1d. Explain the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rationale to charge the Cardillo executives’ violation of violating the insider trading provisions of the federal securities laws.
Weight: 5% Did not submit or incompletely explained the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rationale to charge the Cardillo executives’ violation of violating the insider trading provisions of the federal securities laws. Partially explained the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rationale to charge the Cardillo executives’ violation of violating the insider trading provisions of the federal securities laws. Satisfactorily explained the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) rationale to charge the Cardillo executives’ violation of violating the insider trading provisions of the federal securities laws. Thoroughly explained the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rationale to charge the Cardillo executives’ violation of violating the insider trading provisions of the federal securities laws.
2. Determine who was in violation or compliance of the AICPA’s Code of Professional Conduct in this case study and analyze the key reasons why they were or were not in compliance. Provide support for the rationale.
Weight: 15% Did not submit or incompletely determined who was in violation or compliance of the AICPA’s Code of Professional Conduct in this case study; did not submit or incompletely analyzed the key reasons why they were or were not in compliance. Did not submit or incompletely provided support for the rationale. Partially determined who was in violation or compliance of the AICPA’s Code of Professional Conduct in this case study; partially analyzed the key reasons why they were or were not in compliance. Partially provided support for the rationale. Satisfactorily determined who was in violation or compliance of the AICPA’s Code of Professional Conduct in this case study; satisfactorily analyzed the key reasons why they were or were not in compliance. Satisfactorily provided support for the rationale. Thoroughly determined who was in violation or compliance of the AICPA’s Code of Professional Conduct in this case study; thoroughly analyzed the key reasons why they were or were not in compliance. Thoroughly provided support for the rationale.
3. Analyze the actions taken by Cardillo’s outside auditors and evaluate the level of efficiency of the audit risk management in this case study. Provide support for the rationale.
Weight: 15% Did not submit or incompletely analyzed the actions taken by Cardillo’s outside auditors; did not submit or incompletely evaluated the level of efficiency of the audit risk management in this case study. Did not submit or incompletely provided support for the rationale. Partially analyzed the actions taken by Cardillo’s outside auditors; partially evaluated the level of efficiency of the audit risk management in this case study. Partially provided support for the rationale. Satisfactorily analyzed the actions taken by Cardillo’s outside auditors; satisfactorily evaluated the level of efficiency of the audit risk management in this case study. Satisfactorily provided support for the rationale. Thoroughly analyzed the actions taken by Cardillo’s outside auditors; thoroughly evaluated the level of efficiency of the audit risk management in this case study. Thoroughly provided support for the rationale.
4. Determine whether or not the five (5) components of internal control were being followed. Support the response with at least two (2) examples.
Weight: 15% Did not submit or incompletely determined whether or not the five (5) components of internal control were being followed. Did not submit or incompletely supported the response with at least two (2) examples. Partially determined whether or not the five (5) components of internal control were being followed. Partially supported the response with at least two (2) examples. Satisfactorily determined whether or not the five (5) components of internal control were being followed. Satisfactorily supported the response with at least two (2) examples. Thoroughly determined whether or not the five (5) components of internal control were being followed. Thoroughly supported the response with at least two (2) examples.
5. Create an argument for or against whether auditors have a responsibility to assess the judgment of the decisions made by Cardillo’s management. Support the argument.
Weight: 10% Did not submit or incompletely created an argument for or against whether auditors have a responsibility to assess the judgment of the decisions made by Cardillo’s management. Did not submit or incompletely supported the argument. Partially created an argument for or against whether auditors have a responsibility to assess the judgment of the decisions made by Cardillo’s management. Partially supported the argument. Satisfactorily created an argument for or against whether auditors have a responsibility to assess the judgment of the decisions made by Cardillo’s management. Satisfactorily supported the argument. Thoroughly created an argument for or against whether auditors have a responsibility to assess the judgment of the decisions made by Cardillo’s management. Thoroughly supported the argument.
6. 2 references (or number in the assignment)
Weight: 5% No references provided Does not meet the required number of references; some or all references poor quality choices. Meets number of required references; all references high quality choices. Exceeds number of required references; all references high quality choices.
7. Writing Mechanics, Grammar, and Formatting
Weight: 5% Serious and persistent errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or formatting. Partially free of errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or formatting. Mostly free of errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or formatting. Error free or almost error free grammar, spelling, punctuation, or formatting.
8. Appropriate use of APA in-text citations and reference section
Weight: 5% Lack of in-text citations and / or lack of reference section. In-text citations and references are provided, but they are only partially formatted correctly in APA style. Most in-text citations and references are provided, and they are generally formatted correctly in APA style. In-text citations and references are error free or almost error free and consistently formatted correctly in APA style.
9. Information Literacy/Integration of Sources
Weight: 5% Serious errors in the integration of sources, such as intentional or accidental plagiarism, or failure to use in-text citations. Sources are partially integrated using effective techniques of quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing.
Sources are mostly integrated using effective techniques of quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing. Sources are consistently integrated using effective techniques of quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing.
10. Clarity and Coherence of Writing
Weight: 5% Information is confusing to the reader and fails to include reasons and evidence that logically support ideas. Information is partially clear with minimal reasons and evidence that logically support ideas. Information is mostly clear and generally supported with reasons and evidence that logically support ideas.
Information is provided in a clear, coherent, and consistent manner with reasons and evidence that logically support ideas.
