Code of Professional Ethics & Conduct (4) - Essay Example

Therefore, it institutes ethical requirements for the CPAs who are expected to comply with all parts of the code. However, a breach in one or several of the code requirements leads to disciplinary action administered by the relevant bodies (Crawford & Loyd, 2008). Rule 102: Integrity and Objectivity Paul T. Fink of the Eagan, Minnesota was suspected of a breach in Rule 102, the integrity, and objectivity code. The case entailed the suspicion of a breach in conduct with respect to performance of professional services as controller and chief financial officer of a publicly held entity.

According to the code, a CPA “knowing misrepresentations in the preparations of financial statements or records, or permits or directs another to sign, a document holding significantly false and deceptive information” (AICPA, 2012). Mr. Fink was guilty of participating in backdating several shipping documents meant to correct on expiring letters of credit whose terms had been defaulted. There were other discrepancies detected in the bill of lading in the year 1996 that did not tally with the inland bill of lading signed the same year.

He also signed forms 10-QSB in the second and third quarter of 1996 in full knowledge of the inability of the firm regarding the fulfillment of the contract terms of sale. After the completion of the investigations, Mr. Paul Fink was also guilty of violating Rule 102 on integrity and objectivity. Following the scrutiny of the evidence by the Joint Trial Board, Mr. Paul membership with AICPA was terminated and his practice certificates revoked. The disciplinary action taken on Mr. Paul was justified.

This is because the CPAs perform a fundamental role in society. All the members of AICPA should be consistent with the requirements of the body (AICPA, 2012). Failure to do so, Mr. Paul failed to take the responsibility of representing his professional ethics as required thus breaching the stakeholders trust towards the body and the business. The AICPA can prevent this type of breach in the code of conduct by ensuring that the CPAs frequently observe their needed commitment to the code. The penalties administered should also be strict in order to curb further breach in the code.

Rule 201: Professional Competence The code of professional competence requires a CPA to safeguard a clients’ data. Rule 201 states that “a member remains responsible for ensuring the accuracy and completeness of the services provided by third-party provider” (AICPA, 2012). Therefore, a CPA should provide professional services performed with professional competence and care. David Beck of Lexington allegedly violated the code in the year 2010 where he was accused of lack of professional services in relation with the audit of a business entity.

In his practice, he failed to comply with the standards by failing to plan and conduct the engagement, failing to participate in the planning meetings and organizing the audit staffing (Rittenberg, Johnstone & Gramling, 2010). In addition, he failed to record the necessary documents and details of his audit procedures. After consideration of all the presented evidence, the Joint Trial Board found Mr. David Beck guilty of a breach in rule 201, Professional Competence. Moreover, he violated an AICPA Bylaw for failing to cooperate with Ethics Charging Authority by providing a substantive response to the investigation. As