Auditing - Admission/Application Essay Example

Auditing Q Fraud triangle is the framework designed to explain and analyze the reasoning behind an employee’s decision to commit workplace fraud. Donald Cressey the concepts of the fraud triangle in the 1950s after interviewing 200 convicted embezzlers whom he termed trust violators in the Midwest. It involves three the following three major steps, pressure, opportunity, and rationalization. The pressure part of the fraud triangle examines and analyses the motivation lying behind the crime. The motivation can either be personal financial pressure like debt problems or workplace debt problems like shortfall in revenue or non-financial aspect like pressure for good results at work.

The next aspect of the fraud triangle is opportunity that arises when employees have access to assets and data bank that enables them to both commit and conceal fraud. It commonly occurs in circumstances where a company has a poor internal management system with ineffective monitoring and oversight of management. The final element of the fraud triangle is rationalization. It applies in understanding of the psychology of the individual committing the crime. It primarily focuses on understanding how the person involved in a crime internally justifies his or her actions in an acceptable way to his or her moral compass.

Below is the illustration of the fraud triangle Q 2 Fraud triangle relates to Bruce case in all aspects. Bruce had a personal non-shareable financial need revolving around his status. That is the pressure covered by the fraud triangle, and it acted as the motivation that pushed him towards engaging in the irregularities that Rosetti discovered (Wells 80). As discovered by Rosetti, the company had two internal control deficiencies that created a temporary circumstance allowing Bruce to engage in the fraud.

The deficiencies made Bruce confident and sure, that little or no chance of implication could arise. Finally, on Rationalization Bruce satisfied his individual needs for cash from the vendors. In addition, as a justification Bruce engaged in the fraud since he had no other way of managing his problems. He believed he could lose his job by failing to engage in the fraud since the vendor threatened to reveal his previous illegal conducts to the Agency.Q 3 As an earlier approach, the company could improve its overall and risk management strategies in order to prevent such a situation occurring.

Creating a culture of no acceptance to fraud within the agency could be a baseline restricting to any form of fraud. These eliminate rationalization as a contributing factor to fraud (Wells 83). The second step could be an elimination of all circumstances that could create an opportunity within the agency. That is achievable by creating an oversight and review unit that monitors and reviews all the file and reports from all heads of department within the agency. The final step that the agency could use in order to evade the occurrence of such a situation was to ensure adequate and sufficient motivation and rewarding of its employees.

That could reduce the chances of pressure towards fraud occurring.Works CitedWells, Joseph T. "The Case Of The Pilfering Purchasing Manager." Journal Of Accountancy 197.5 (2004): 80-82. Business Source Complete. Web. 24 Oct. 2014.