CL22-P1 Reviews exercise (CHP 20)

pdf

School

University of Guelph *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

3280

Subject

Finance

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

pdf

Pages

2

Uploaded by ElderStork3927

Report
-- TO BE SUBMITTED AFTER CLASS -- NON-AUDIT ENGAGEMENTS For each of the following situations, compose a list of enquiries you would make, and which company officials you would speak with. You are in charge of the review of Fraser Acres Ltd., a poultry farm. One of the areas you identified as potentially risky is that of environmental exposure. How often are your fuel tanks certified? How many pieces of equipment do you have, and do they run diesel or gas? How is the disposing of chicken waste done and how much waste is there? How many birds do you have per square foot? What is the procedure for dealing with diseases among the birds? You are in charge of the review of Thompson Holdings Inc., a small family-owned motel business. The founder, Jim Thompson, was recently deceased. You identified going concern as a potential risk for the company. What safeguards are in place to keep business afloat? What was Jim Thompson responsible for within the business? Who is going to step in as a new owner? What does the cash account along with current assets look like? *Reviews and complications*
-- TO BE SUBMITTED AFTER CLASS -- Hellener & Pagliari LLP (H&P) performed a review on Smallco Ltd. (“Smallco) for ten years. Smallco is a small local business owned and managed by Dennis Small. Because the entity is so small, a complete segregation of incompatible duties within the organization has not been possible. H&P is aware of this, but also understands that the cost of enforcing full segregation of duties is not economic for Smallco. For each of the ten years, H&P issued a clean Review Engagement Report. Several weeks ago, H&P was informed that the owner of Smallco was suing the firm. A trusted bookkeeper who was with the company for many years had been committing fraud by writing cheques to herself. This information was uncovered when the Dennis, concerned about deteriorating profit margins, sought advice from H&P, who recommended that he review the bank statements. At that point, he found the unauthorized cheques for that month. Dennis has now gone back seven years and determined that the fraud started on a small scale in the early years but has escalated significantly in the past four years. Should H&P have found the fraud? Will Dennis’s lawsuit be successful? Support for YES: The company was tasked to find anything strange going on in the business and failed to find fraud. Although it is just a review, during an analytical review it could have been seen a profit margin dropping if all other aspects remain constant. The alarms should have been raised when the H&P saw there was no segregation of duties which is poor controls for fraud. Support for NO:
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help