Search results

This case is based on using the fraud triangle, theoretical aspects like rationalization and motivation for understanding the financial pressures and corporate greed lead to accounting fraud. Building on the corporate governance’s weakness, the case explores the challenges and the changes that the company has to make to survive.

The case study has been entirely based on published resources. The case explores out the reasons why the companies commit accounting fraud using the motivations, financial pressures and the opportunities exploited due to a weak governance system.

The case deals with a RMB 2.2bn accounting fraud at Luckin Coffee Inc. (L.K.), a US-listed Chinese company, which led to a steep fall in its share price by more than 80% in April 2020. The company’s CEO had to resign in light of the accounting fraud, which involved fabricating the transactions in 2019, the same year it got listed on the NASDAQ stock exchange. The case is a classic example of greed, corporate ambition and flaws in the corporate governance that led to the fraud while framing a course of action for the company moving forward. The case allows the learners to dive deep into the facts to find out why the fraud happened and its repercussions for the company and its various stakeholders. The case can be useful in Accounting, Corporate governance or Ethics modules for both undergraduate and postgraduate students.

The case can be used for both postgraduate and undergraduate financial accounting or corporate governance modules or the executive development programmes explicitly dealing with ethical challenges and accounting fraud.

The impact of corporate governance on internal controls and quality of financial disclosures.

Analysis of a real financial fraud event for a non-US multinational corporation. The case relies on accessing and analyzing annual reports for the firm, both before and after the fraud. Additional information on industry governance characteristics are provided in the case itself so that students can compare the firm to the industry.

This business case is centered on the analysis of Schneider Electric, a French multinational corporation, which had to restate their financial statements in 2011 because of accounting fraud. Following this event, Schneider undertook major changes in their board structure to improve internal control mechanisms. This pedagogical business case familiarizes students with international differences in ownership and board structure and emphasizes potential corporate governance changes after financial statement fraud.

Managerial finance, corporate finance, international finance, auditing. This case is more appropriate for upper-level undergraduate and graduate courses.

In 2011, Sherry Hunt was a vice president and chief underwriter at CitiMortgage headquarters in the United States. For years she had been witnessing fraud, as the company bought billions of dollars in mortgage loans from external lenders that did not meet Citi credit policy and sold them to government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs). This resulted in Citi selling to GSEs such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pools of loans that were considerably defective and thus likely to default. Citi had also approved hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of defective mortgage files for U.S. Federal Housing Administration insurance. After reporting the mortgage defects in regular reports, notifying and working closely with her direct supervisor (who was subsequently asked to leave Citi after alerting the chairman of the board to these issues) to stop the purchase of defective loans, leaving anonymous tips on the FBI's and the Department of Housing and Urban Development's websites, and receiving threats from two of her superiors who demanded that she change the results of her quality control unit's reports, the shy and conflict-avoidant Hunt had to decide who she should tell about the fraud, and how.

The case gives students the opportunity to recommend how Hunt should proceed based on their analysis of the stakeholders involved. To aid instructors, the case includes Kellogg-produced videos of Hunt—the only on-camera interviews she has ever given—explaining what happened after she reported the fraud to Citi HR and, later, the U.S. Department of Justice. Within the case, students are also briefly exposed to legislation and bodies pertinent to whistle-blowing in the United States, including the Dodd-Frank Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and the SEC Office of the Whistleblower.

This case won the 2014 competition for Outstanding Case on Anti-Corruption, supported by the Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME), an initiative of the UN Global Compact.

• Analyze stakeholders' motivations to prepare counter-arguments to the resistance one might encounter when reporting unethical behavior

• Write a script for who to tell, how, and why

• Discuss how incentive structures, management, and culture play roles in promoting or hindering ethical behavior in organizations

• Identify behaviors that help a whistle-blower be effective

• Gain experience resolving ethical dilemmas in which two values may conflict, such as professional duty and personal ethics

Analyze stakeholders' motivations to prepare counter-arguments to the resistance one might encounter when reporting unethical behavior

Write a script for who to tell, how, and why

Discuss how incentive structures, management, and culture play roles in promoting or hindering ethical behavior in organizations

Identify behaviors that help a whistle-blower be effective

Gain experience resolving ethical dilemmas in which two values may conflict, such as professional duty and personal ethics

The subject areas for this case are auditing, fraud and investigations. It is also relevant for teaching aspects of corporate governance.

This case consolidates techniques and methodologies of special investigations and demonstrates weaknesses in governance and internal controls. It is appropriate for final year undergraduate students and graduate students who have attended classes on basics of accounting and financial reporting.

The case is about institutional governance and the effects of ineptness at different levels of an organization that resulted in TAS. 133 billion being “improperly” paid out to 22 firms in the financial year 2005/2006.The case is structured to focus at the dilemma of the Director of Finance as an individual who featured in the latter stages of an extensive fraud where old unclaimable debts were revived and were being claimed and paid to fictitious assignees involving a number of Central Bank officials. However, the case seeks to interrogate issues related to financial records and controls in which the position of Director of Finance had more relevance.

Working on this case should result in enabling students to acquire expertise necessary for forensic accounting. It should also enable students to learn to gain an understanding of the practice of investigative and forensic accounting as well as an understanding of the interrelationships of the parties involved in forensic investigations.

Teaching note.

This case involves a real-life Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Sir Allen Stanford, a man who bribed Antiguan regulators and a certified public accountant firm to perpetuate his scam. The case includes the process of making victims whole, which involves a court-initiated clawback process: taking back payouts to investors or charities to redistribute the funds to other fraud victims who did not receive their fair payout. Students apply theory learned in an upper-level fraud or forensic accounting course. Finally, the case addresses the aftermath of a fraud scheme.

Ponzi schemes – one of the most common types of investment fraud – have caused investors to lose billions of dollars. Because of the prevalence of Ponzi schemes and the ramifications to investors, it is important for business students to understand the nature of these schemes and to learn how to recognize them. As future business professionals, students will be charged with recognizing a Ponzi scheme early and uncovering it before investors lose their investments.

This case is designed for upper-level undergraduate students or graduate students taking a fraud or forensic accounting course, which is best introduced after professors cover Ponzi schemes and also these concepts: fraud triangle, fraud diamond and fraud red flags.

This case investigation used firsthand statements, reports, testimony and regulatory records. While widely publicized in the popular press, this case is based on primary documents. On their website, many documents were obtained from Wells Fargo’s Corporate newsroom, such as the internal audit report shared with shareholders and press releases. Most other sources were from US regulatory websites (.gov) or congressional testimony. In a few places, quotes and comments came from reliable journalistic sites that cite their sources and follow a journalist’s code of ethics and conduct, ensuring that the reported remarks and data were verified.

Since 2016, Wells Fargo Bank has faced multiple customer mistreatment investigations and resultant fines. Public outcry and distrust resulted from Wells Fargo employees creating hidden accounts and enrolling people in bank services without their knowledge to meet desired levels of sustained shareholder growth. Over the past five years, Wells Fargo has been fined and returned to customers and stockholders over $3bn. Wells Fargo executives spent the first year of the scandal citing improper behavior by employees. Leadership did not take responsibility for setting the organizational goals, which led to employee misbehavior. Even after admitting some culpability in creating the extreme sales culture, executives and the Board of Directors tried to distance themselves from blame for the unethical behavior. They cited the organizations’ decentralized structure as a reason the board was not quicker in seeing and correcting the negative behaviors of these ‘bad apple’ employees. Wells Fargo faced multiple concurrent scandals, such as upselling services to retirees, inappropriately repossessing service members’ vehicles, adding insurance and extra fees to mortgages and other accounts and engaging in securities fraud. As time has passed, the early versions of a handful of “bad apples” seem to be only a part of the overall “poison tree.”The dilemma, in this case, is who is responsible for the misbehavior and the inappropriate sales of products and services (often without the customer’s knowledge)? Is strategic growth year-over-year with no allowances for environmental and economic factors a realistic and reasonable goal for corporations? This case is appropriate for undergraduates and graduate students in finance, human resources, management, accounting and investments.

An active case-based learning pedagogical approach is suggested. The materials include a short podcast, video and other materials to allow the faculty to assign pre-class work or to use in the classroom before a case discussion.

Winstar Communications was a successful and fast growing telecommunication company in the 1990s and early 2000s. However, in the early 2000s, the company started to struggle financially. In 2000, Grant Thornton audited Winstar, issuing an unqualified opinion. After Winstar went into bankruptcy in 2002, investors started to question the quality of the audit. This teaching case is based on the Gould v. Grant Thornton case that was tried in the United States Court of Appeals in 2011/2012. It provides accounting students with an opportunity to learn about auditing procedures and the consequences when auditing procedures are not correctly followed.

Teaching case study.

This case study is suitable for introductory undergraduate auditing, advanced undergraduate auditing and master level auditing courses.

The case highlights the ethical dilemmas people face in various business situations. The case throws light on the causes and consequences of violation and the problems related to enforcement of shared organizational values/code of conduct.

This case can be used in courses on human resource management, OB and corporate ethics and is suitable for the postgraduate and undergraduate students of business schools.

The case narrates the dilemma faced by the Vice President of human resources (VP-HR) of a company when he discovered a major violation of the company's code of conduct by the Vice President of research and development (VP-R&D). The VP-R&D is almost indispensable to the company given his unique expertise and criticality of the new Design Centre which he is spearheading single-handedly. Sacking the VP-R&D has the potential of delaying commissioning of the new centre and putting new business wins in jeopardy. On the other hand, not taking any action may erode employees faith in code of conduct and company values. The VP-HR must decide fast whether and how to take action on gross violation of company's code of conduct.

The students will gain understanding of shared organizational values, code of conduct and ethics, know about the causes and consequences of violation of shared values, discover ways to institutionalize shared organizational values and resolve ethical dilemma.

Teaching notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email support@emeraldinsight.com to request teaching notes.

The case highlights a $1.4 billion fraud committed by the founder of a NYSE listed, Information Technology Services firm in India. In response to the crisis, the Indian government appointed an interim board to find a strategic investor in the company. The case traces the events leading to the fall of the company. Students are asked to analyze the governance and intermediation failures, assess the financial position of the company and to estimate the intrinsic value of the company from an acquirer's perspective.

On March 7, 2013, ThyssenKrupp Group CEO Heinrich Hiesinger was shocked to receive a resignation letter from Gerhard Cromme, chairman of the company's supervisory board.

Hiesinger had been CEO since 2010. Early in his tenure, ThyssenKrupp incurred massive losses from disastrous steel investments and faced allegations of colluding with other companies to fix prices in its railway steel operations. As a result, Hiesinger had been forced to dismiss three executive board members, one for violating company policy. After a supervisory board member also was dismissed for violating company policy, the company's offices were raided in an investigation of price-fixing in steel contracts to the automotive industry.

Cromme had been sharply criticized by shareholders and analysts as an impediment to the cultural, strategic, and governance changes Hiesinger was trying to make to address the scandals at ThyssenKrupp, but for months he defiantly had resisted calls for his removal. With no warning, he resigned without naming a successor or creating a plan to select one.

Now that he no longer needed to deal with the distractions created by Cromme's presence, Hiesinger was free to finalize a plan to address the defects in ThyssenKrupp's governance.