Operational audit case 1:

Anthony Williams is a very clever and deceitful man. If he can get away with fraud for
almost a decade what else can he get away with? Good thing the bank questioned his unethical
spending. The business should’ve required 2 or more signatory claims for payment but instead
they got careless and too trusting on one guy. We need to try to have more accountability as
higher ups because the business depends and its future depends on us. Seeing this man get away
with a lot of money just by being trusted, it seems people will lie, cheat and steal to get to the
top. Funny things is, serial killers are one of the most charismatic individuals. It is also the same
with Fraudsters. They will get your trust then will stab you behind your back. It is always the
people we least expect to betray us. Sadly, that’s how life works. People just want to get ahead in
life if given the opportunity. People have this thing called crab mentality. Crab mentality is a
phenomena in which people react badly to those who move ahead of them in terms of their
thoughts, statements, or actions, even if they don't expect any immediate rewards. Seeing how
Mr. Williams operated. We could see how he wanted to get as much as he can with little remorse
for others especially his bosses. I would like to point how they trusted this man so easily. That is
one of the biggest risk a company could ever do. You shouldn’t only just trust one man, you
should trust multiple men because it will lessen the chances of one person getting away with
everything just like Mr. Williams. Always have 2 more signatory claims for everything to insure
the document is legit and truthful. Then recruit qualified employee. The company didn’t just lack
here but there overall internal control. They should create a new Internal Control wherein the
COSO framework is used. What is COSO Framework? The COSO (Committee of Sponsoring
Organization) Framework is a set of guidelines for establishing, implementing, and assessing
internal controls in organizations, as well as for managing enterprise risk. It was written for the
Internal Control Integrated Framework, or ICIF, which is widely used in the US. This will help
the organization in finding new risk and new shortcomings of the business especially if
fraudulent acts are being committed. Lastly, I would want to see if 5 Million is the only thing he
got away with. We don’t know how much he really did and being an auditor, we need to see if
indeed 5 million was the only thing he took. We could never really know how much but looking
and investigating further will go a long way. Just by trusting a lone man, it hindered the progress
and reputation of the company and likely would never bounce back. But sometimes luck can be
on your side.

Operational Audit Case 2:

Robert Maxwell and the auditors, Cooper and Lybrand, committed fraud by making the
company look liquid. I deeply remember the scandal committed by Enron. In October 2001, the
Enron Scandal broke when it was revealed that America's seventh largest corporation was
implicated in corporate malfeasance and accounting fraud. The Enron energy company was
embroiled in a scandal that included political ramifications due to the company's close ties to the
White House, ENRON's deregulation, which allowed the company to operate largely free of US
government scrutiny, misrepresentation in earnings reports, a phony "energy crisis," and
embezzlement by ENRON executives. The Enron controversy finally led to the company's
bankruptcy, as well as the breakup of the auditing firm Arthur Andersen. Seeing how similar the
two case is, I would like to think that more and more companies are still doing this scheme. It is
unfortunate that even one big company got caught, the other companies wouldn’t mind as long as
they are not the ones caught. The problem here is that there is no internal control whatsoever.
The owner committed this act on his own and with the help of external auditors. Given if the
company has internal controls, I would still think that it would do anything as well. But the
problem is really the owner and his willingness to for his company to look liquid in order to get
more people investing in it. If given the chance, I would ask the CEO to step down because his
actions are not in line with the company’s visions. The BOD should have a meeting wherein they
would discuss the future of the CEO and go from there. They should elect a new and trustworthy
Candidate and should also be in line with the companies’ mission, vision, goals, and etc... But
seeing how easily the former CEO manipulated these external auditors, The company should
change auditors every 2 years so the cost will be less and reliability would be high. However,
this would also be hard considering its every 2 years. Consistency might be low due to it.
Changing the big boss, would be the first step to the right direction for this company, but its
reputation will also be in tatters. By having a new CEO, the company might get back the
reputation they once had even if its small. Enron didn’t bounce back from their scandal though
but not every company is the same.

Operational Audit Case 3:

The Sellafield Nuclear Power Plant misdoings are a lot riskier than stated in the Case. If
their behavior continues, the whole world will certainly collapse because of it. I would like to
think of the Chernobyl Disaster. The Chernobyl disaster was a nuclear disaster that happened on
April 26, 1986, at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant's No. 4 reactor in Pripyat in the Ukrainian
Soviet Socialist Republic. The disaster occurred during a safety test on an RBMK-type nuclear
reactor's steam turbine. The power output unexpectedly decreased to near-zero during a
scheduled reduction of reactor power in preparation for the test. The operators were unable to
restore the test program's prescribed power level, putting the reactor in an unstable state. Because
the risk was not mentioned in the operating instructions, the operators went ahead and performed
the test. The operators shut down the reactor when the test was completed. However, the reactor
was on the verge of exploding due to a combination of operator error and significant design
defects. Seeing how similar the two is, I would like to conclude that the workers were not only
incompetent for the job but also don’t care about the wellbeing of it. Not only will it cause to
explode, but also affect the Ozone layer. We are already in deep crisis as it is. Global Warming is
already here and if this also happened in real life, I would like to think that the Earth would not
handle it. If given the chance to change something, I will look for Employees who are
hardworking and knows what the potential risk are. Seeing how lax and not caring the former
employees were to the safety and risk hazards, it would be hard to look for employees.

Health and safety are always the first thing to be in mind especially on big nuclear power plant.
Not only you are at risk, but also the people within the proximity and the entire earth. So, the
company should shut down first and assess the whole ordeal. We need to see how bad it is
getting and go from there. But from the initial reading, the company should really fire the
incompetent employees because they are only risk there. I would like to think that these workers
have families to feed and they wouldn’t be of any help if they are dead. I hope that that the
companies would really be think of the bigger picture rather than cost cutting. Experienced
workers cost more but will ensure less risk.

Operational Audit Case 4:

The CSFB, or Credit Suisse First Boston, has been accused of misinforming Japanese tax and
regulatory authorities, providing biased investment advice on Wall Street, alleged dotcom
flotation abuses, and was banned in India for share price fixing, asking employees to "try to keep
dinners below $10,000," misleading clients into buying loss-making products, and the most
serious of all, concealing documents, purchasing a shredder, and moving a shredder.This a big
crime simply because they don’t want to pay the right amount of tax they owed. A major shuffle
is needed here because different departments need to agree of doing this. It is definitely hard to
pinpoint which individual is at fault here so I think the best way is to see if the departments are
doing its job but seeing how they would’ve already shredded the documents, it will be extra hard
to track down. We would need to track it by going to the supplier and see their documents. It will
be costly and hard especially if the company buys its resources with different Companies as well.
After tracking it down, we need to see who is at fault here. Who was the mastermind of this
doing? Is it the CEO? The CFO? The President? Or is it the Vice President? A thorough
background search might help because it will likely come up if the suspect already has a past of
it. It is stated that the management has changed but most likely this will happen if we don’t put a
very reform and new Internal Control. We need to be cautious of everybody because most likely
the middle management who helped the upper management is still working within the business
and most likely will be easily manipulated as well. We need to have a new management wherein
it is firm and decisive. Having a big step back from its predecessor, the reputation is going to be
hard to get back considering the Credit Suisse First Boston or CSFB tried to lie and misinform
different firms at different countries as well. More firms would likely stay clear and be extra
careful with them. Just by simply hiding documents, it made the company image become dark
and shallow. It would be best for the company if they reinvent themselves and change their
name. their past will really haunt them again and again even if one hundred years have passed.
Their name will forever be tarnished because of this evil doing.

Sources:

Effectiviology (n.d.), Crab Mentality: When People Pull Down Those Who Get Ahead

https://effectiviology.com/crab-mentality/
Garcia, Thea (2019), What is the COSO Framework?
https://reciprocity.com/resources/what-is-the-coso-framework/

american-historama (n.d). Enron Scandal, https://www.american-historama.org/1990-present-

modern-era/enron-scandal.htm

"Chernobyl Nuclear Accident". www.iaea.org. 14 May 2014.

Burgherr, Peter; Hirschberg, Stefan (2008). "A Comparative Analysis of Accident Risks in
Fossil, Hydro, and Nuclear Energy Chains". Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. 14 (5):
947–973. 
"INSAG-7: The Chernobyl Accident: Updating of INSAG-1" (PDF). IAEA.
1992. Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 October 2018. Retrieved 8 November 2018.