Case 3: Loyalty and Fraud Reporting (a GVV case) Note Paper needs to be original Questions 1. Analyze the facts of the case using the Fraud Triangle. Would you characterize what Ethan Lester did as a

Case 3: Loyalty and Fraud Reporting (a GVV case) Note Paper needs to be original Questions 1. Analyze the facts of the case using the Fraud Triangle. Would you characterize what Ethan Lester did as a
ACC 696 Case Study 3 Rubric The third case study in the course gives you the opportunity to evaluate and select your own case to analyze. Be sure that the case you chose provides you with enough of a framework to answer the questions for the assignment. C heck the module resources for assistance with evaluating a case study. Please review the evaluation criteria in the rubric below, which highlights grading information. Prompt : Choose a financial statement fraud case involving a public company within the l ast five years. The case should be of sufficient length to provide enough detail for you to complete a 3 – to 4 -page paper (750 –1,000 words). The paper should consist of the following elements:  Provide a summary of the case of no more than 150 words.  Expl ain the accountant’s role in discovering fraud.  Illustrate the fraud triangle through analysis of the fraud case.  Evaluate the case using the three prongs of the fraud triangle to identify potential pressures, opportunities, and rationalizations.  Includ e a conclusion that answers the question “What internal controls could have prevented this fraud?” Critical Elements Exemplary (100%) Proficient (90%) Needs Improvement (70%) Not Evident (0%) Value Financial Statement Fraud Case Selection Meets “P roficient” criteria and provides clear evidence for each of the paper criteria Selected a case study that outlines a financial fraud case that took place in the last 5 years. Case is of sufficient length as to provide enough information to add ress the criteria for the paper Selected a case study , but the case is older than 5 years or does not provide evidenc e for the criteria of the paper Case study is not a financial statement fraud case 20 Case Summary Meets “Proficient” criteria and provides original thoughts on the impact of the case on the prof essional accounting environment Summary efficiently outlines main details of the case pres ented in no more than 150 words Summary outlines some points , but some deta ils are missed o r the summary exceeds 150 words Summary is not relevant to the case study 15 Accountant’s Role Meets “P roficient” criteria and draws on personal experienc e to strengthen the correlation Draws a correlation, supported by evidence in the ca se and text, between the details of the case and what the accountant could have done to discover the fraud Correlation between the case details and role of the accountant is not supported b y evidence in the case and text No correlation is drawn between the details of the case and the role of the accountant 15 Fraud Triangle Meets “P roficient” criteria and highlights specif ic examples to provide evidence Demonstrates how the frau d triangle applies to this case Demonstrates how parts of the fraud triangle a pply to the case Does not attempt to demonstrate any relation between the fraud triangle and the case 15 Three Prongs of the Fraud Triangle Meets “P roficient” criteria and provides relevant ev idence for each of the 3 prongs Clearly identifies potential pressures, opportunities, and rationalizations using the 3 prongs of the fraud triangle Does not fully identify potential pressures, opportunities, and rationalizations using the 3 prongs of the fraud triangle Does not attempt to identify the potential pres sures, opportunities, and rationaliza tions 15 Conclusion Meets “P roficient” criteria , and conclusions are compared to current workplace scenarios Draws conclusions that are justified with evidence Draws logical conclusions, but does not defend with eviden ce Does not draw logical conclusions 10 Articulation of Response Meets “P roficient” criteria and is presented in a professional and easy -to-read format Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization and is of a sufficient length to provide necessary details in answering the question Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas. Answers are brief and lacking in detail Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas. Answers fail to address all parts of the que stion or omit important details 10 Earned Total 100%
Case 3: Loyalty and Fraud Reporting (a GVV case) Note Paper needs to be original Questions 1. Analyze the facts of the case using the Fraud Triangle. Would you characterize what Ethan Lester did as a
Yvonne, the rubric for the third case assignment states the following requirement: The third case study in the course gives you the opportunity to evaluate and select your own case to analyze. Be sure that the case you chose provides you with enough of a framework to answer the questions for the assignment. Check the module resources for assistance with evaluating a case study. Please review the evaluation criteria in the rubric below, which highlights grading information. Prompt: Choose a financial statement fraud case involving a public company within the last five years. If it is not your practice that you download the rubric for each assignment so that you can be aware of the specific requirements, I recommend that you incorporate that into your work processes as a process improvement so that you can realize it as a course takeaway. Note that I provided a screen shot of the specific requirement of the nature of the case selection (that it be a recent financial statement fraud case involving a public company within the last five years) to emphasize the importance of that detail in advance to the class.   If it is not your practice to review the course announcements each week, I highly encourage that you set aside a minute or so to give them a quick scan at the start of each week.  I have found that there are specific problem areas in the course and I make an effort to emphasize them in advance for everyone’s benefit.  I encourage you to engage in the high value-added activity of briefly reviewing the course announcements each week so that you invest your time in the course efficiently and strategically. In reviewing your case selection, it appears that you have selected a case from the textbook in lieu of selecting a financial statement fraud case involving a public company within the last five years and as such your case selection does not meet the basic requirement of the rubric.  One key point here is that the course is geared to academic research and a certain amount of appropriate research is required to locate a suitable case.  In the course announcements I have recommended the SEC website as a great source for cases.  I will offer it here for you again in case you are interested: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases.htm.   It is not required that students research the SEC website, mind you, but I find that it is a wealth of information and students who use the resource can excel in the assignments. The late policy this term allows you to submit work up to a week from the original due date subject to a 10% late penalty.  I encourage you to do that so that you can earn points for the assignment.  Today’s date:  3/30/21