Whistleblowing System In The Film Chasing Madoff

On January 27, 2004, Martha Stewart stood on trial facing charges of conspiracy, obstruction, securities fraud, and lying to investigators in connection with the sale of her stock in ImClone, a biopharmaceutical company (Gibson, Warin, & Gassaway, 2008). Just three years earlier, Stewart sold her stocks that she had within the company. After two days, the organization 's stock dropped 16 percent when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said it had rejected the company’s new project of a drug, Erbitux, which was meant to be for cancer treatment (Leite, 2012). Stewart had controlled 4,000 shares of ImClone and by selling (or getting rid of, depending on who you ask) her shares, just before the FDA 's declaration, she kept away from

on May 20, 2002, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announcedproceedings against Ernst & Young (EY). The case reaches back to the years before EY 's consulting practice was sold to Cap Gemini. It involves alleged independence violations due to product sales and consulting fees related to PeopleSoft software, while PeopleSoft was an EY audit client. The SEC alleges that EY and PeopleSoft co-developed and co-marketed a software product called "EY/GEMS for PeopleSoft." These allegations focus on EY 's use of components of PeopleSoft 's proprietary source code in software previously developed and marketed by the accounting firm 's tax department. In return for the code, SEC says EY agreed to pay royalties ranging from 15% to 30% from

A study by Nodon (2015) has demonstrated that the fraud triangle consists of three factors: motivation, opportunity, rationalizations. The first element is motivation or pressure, Buchholz (2012) clarified the main reason that pressure people to commit an act is due to financial complication. The incentive for Bernard Madoff was to keep a trend for a successful lifestyle Buchholz (2012). Hurt (2009) elaborated that Madoff was feeling pressurized due to the sum of money he has to repay to existing investors. The second factor of fraud triangle is opportunity, there are high chance fraudsters would not be exposed because of their powers and position and there is a direct relationship between fraud opportunity and weak internal control (Dorminey et al., 2010). In the Madoff case, as a leader of the organization, he had sufficient power to plan the internal control system and corporate governance in such a manner that would only be favorable to him. It was found that the segregation of duties in Madoff scheme was not present (Fuerman 2009). The last element of fraud triangle is rationalizations - it is important to note how the individual is justifying the act committed by him. Day (2010) evaluates that Madoff was practicing this scheme firstly for his own benefit and for the benefit of his family by taking advantage of investors. However, Henriques (2012) argues that for all the banks and funds that Madoff had cheated on, they should be aware there are some issues in the plan as they were monetary

This is a cautionary tale of how corporate crime can cause severe harm. The shareholders were prevented by those perpetuating the fraud from selling while the stock was falling, while at the same time they moved their money out of the company. The final outcome was that the perpetrators being Jeff Schilling CEO, Ken Lay, and chief financial officer Andrew Fastow each received hefty sentences. According to CNN, Skilling was originally sentenced to 24 years, the longest sentence of any Enron perpetrator, and has been incarcerated in the federal prison system since his 2006 conviction. He had been facing a release date of Feb. 21, 2028,” (Smith). Ken Lay died before he could be sentenced and Andrew Fastow was released early as a result of a plea

Lehman Brothers were an investment bank involved in transactions worth billions of dollars and one of the most powerful investment banks in the world.

In this paper I will be analyzing the research on Mickey Monus and his fraud crimes. I will exam the fraud and how it applies to this course, such as where it belongs on the fraud tree. Along with what type of fraud was committed, and how they got away with it for so long.

TL;DR –The Wells Fargo Vice President who oversaw the retail division which was responsible for mass fraud should have been fired rather than allowed to retire.

Madoff had Complicit knowledge of the fraud that he was obtaining on doing on his client base that they were oblivious to his actual fraudulent Securities, that there actually was no project nor any Securities that they were trading on the behalf of these clients that in an sense it was almost like a pyramid scheme that he would obtain funds from the individual to pay off those investors with the 20% that he guaranteed to give them and then obtained the other 20% from new clients. Explain to them the operation and from the market of how mr. Madoff had actually set out to defraud the clients as well as the Trade Commission U.S. Securities from Bernie L Madoff in the defendants forward from the chairman and head Of the board directors for the NASDAQ stock market interest in in the marketing and maintaining it on Operating the records of fair deals and higher ethics standards that he had been tricking them with Giving them fraudulent information on the firm's activities. The supervisor also advised FBI that on January 7th, 2008 That Mr. Madoff Misrepresented His Holdings and its client base to the SEC Stating that he had between 11 and 25 clients and total approximately 17.1 billion dollars and assets under his management However, he had less clients and he only had approximately 7

He appears to have put profits ahead of mine safety and health in violation of Federal mine standards. Mr. Blankenship could go to prison for 31 years. (See NBC News) CEO Stewart Parnell of Peanut Corporation of America was sentenced to 28 years in prison in connection with a 2008 salmonella outbreak that killed nine people and sickened 714 others across the U.S. Bernard Madoff is serving 150 years jail time for engaging in a multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme that claimed many celebrity victims. Even former Fed chairman Ben Bernanke had some reservations about prosecutions for the 2008 Great Recession. Individuals were responsible for that debacle not abstract firms. He was quoted as saying, “But it would have been my preference to have more investigation of individual action, since obviously everything that went wrong or was illegal was done by some individual, not by an abstract firm." (See Huffington

Take Enron for example, in the later 1990s its stated worth was estimated to been around $70 billion dollars, but after internal review it was found that much of its debt was allocated to falsely created businesses leaving its stated assets to be significantly lower than its actual debt. The scandal was such an issue for all its investors and the government predominantly because its net value decreased radically and by December 2, 2001 the company declared bankruptcy. One of the main issues of this scandal that investigators found was that the company hired auditor, Arthur Andersen, was conspiring with the CEO and CFO to falsify the financial documentation. Had the SOX Act been implemented prior, these falsifications would have been addressed long before the company declared bankruptcy. Of the eleven sections in the SOX Act, Title III Section 802, address what constitutes as fraud and would have held the Enron and Arthur Anderson accountable for submitting proper documents. Also the SOX Act Title IV, Section 404, which states that the management of a corporation must be responsible for establishing and maintaining a system of internal control that is compliant with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, would have required a third party double check of the corporates financial reporting which would have assisted in bringing to light the corrupt practices of creating false business and prevented a hired audit company from approving the

The problem with the current financial regulations is that it does stop corporations from committing fraud. When a bank, such as Credit Suisse, pleads guilty to a crime like helping Americans avoid taxes, they are not punished with criminal charges or anything that would actually stop them from committing the same act.

In the case of Dale Emerson and Ernest Wallace I believe that Wallace was ethically in the wrong. As common small talk with family, Emerson was talking of a planned takeover of Dakota Gasworks, Inc. to his uncle on a weekend fishing trip. Unfortunately, Emerson’s uncle took the inside information from his nephew and used it to his advantage to gain large profits.

Madoff was promising his investors, security and strength. He told investors whatever they gave him, would simply develop and develop. Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in jail for running the greatest deceitful plan in U.S. history. Indeed, even now, just a couple of his casualties have following recovered the greater part of their misfortunes. A very much regarded lender, Madoff persuaded thousands regarding financial specialists to hand over their funds, erroneously encouraging steady benefits consequently. He was gotten in December 2008 and accused of 11 tallies of extortion, tax evasion, prevarication, and burglary.

In 2008 the country experienced a financial crash not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930”s. The media made the obvious victims the investment banking industry, mortgage companies, large commercial banks, and insurance companies to name a few (Havemann, 2015). This wealthy, powerful, and privileged group broke the law with no consequence. Often times their callous business techniques were rewarded or viewed with respect. Their behaviors are what many believe caused the financial crash, yet they suffered no consequences. However the less obvious and more seriously affected victims were working class families, young people just entering the work force, the elderly on fixed incomes, and many blue collar workers. Many average America

I believe that whistleblowing is a moral activity of last resort and that, in specific situations; it is fitting, as well as necessary. As described by the Dougherty (1995), whistleblowing refers to a notice issued by a part or previous individual from an organization to people in general around a serious wrongdoing or risk made or disguised inside of the organization. We would add to this definition that an honest to goodness case of whistleblowing requires the whistleblower to have used, unsuccessfully, all suitable channels inside of the organization to right an off-base (Dougherty, 1995). Members tended to view whistleblowing as an outer action to a lethargic association and reporting more as an inside procedure, done through hierarchical channels. Such was the circumstance with Barry Adams. He had unsuccessfully depleted all the interior channels of correspondence regarding perilous patient consideration and hazardously low staffing levels before opening up to the world. Right when whistleblowing happens in the course as it is described, we can trust that it is an ethically bold movement. Exactly when all is said and done, the whistleblower must blow the whistle for the right good reason and thinking. This case brings up a few issues like what are the individual and the expert notorieties of the whistleblower and what are the