Project 1 Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Project 1 - Assignment Example Andersen served as the company’s auditor and he consequently issued an auditor’s report that stated that all-financial statements had been presented fairly with respect to all materials and in accordance to the GAAP. Duncan was the global engagement partner for the Enron’s audits. He held such responsibilities as determining whether an unqualified opinion should be issued within the report of the auditor. The main official responsibility of Duncan was to ensure that all auditors’ reports about the financial statements were relevant and true before he could sign them. Duncan held full responsibility on the approval for all business documents and financial statements and the Enron’s annual reports on the forms 10-k that had been filed with the commission for years 1998 to 200 consecutively. In addition, Duncan was supposed to design and implement auditing procedures that were adequate in addressing the total risks essential in the Enron engagement. He was supposed to perform tests and other procedures to obtain competent and sufficient evident matter. He was supposed to properly supervise the audits for Enron (Markham & Jerry 92). Duncan was responsible for determining whether the unqualified opinions were supposed to be issued within the auditor’s report. For the ended years, however, Duncan did not perform his duty in due diligence. He was not careful to note that the auditor’s reports he had signed on behalf of Andersen were misleading and materially false. Duncan had carelessly signed the unqualified auditor’s reports with little concern on observing their relevance. This action was alleged as being against the Securities Exchange Act of section 10 (b) as well as being against rule 10b-5. Duncan failed to ensure that the engagement team audited Enron’s prepay transactions according to the GAAS and also failed to make sure that Enron adequately disclose and presented the prepay transactions in its financial statements. With respect to the AU Section 316, with consideration of Fraud in a financial statement audit, the Anderson team identified several risk factors. Andersen identified the Fraud risk at Enron as well as the engagement team that documented that many risks were available with Enron. For instance, questioners that were prepared by the engagement team demonstrated that Enron placed emphases that were undue on meeting earnings targets. Enron also used highly destructive accounting practices. Another risk that had been identified is that Enron used uncommon year-end dealings that posed difficult substance over form enquiries. The misleading statements that Duncan had signed had some social-economic consequences of that, the financial statements were not performed with respect to GAAS and that his financial statements did not present Enron’s outcomes of operations, their financial position, cash flows and changes in the equity with respect to the GAAP. This acti on demonstrated Duncan recklessness that is a social problem associated with the Enron. Much of the Enron’s quarterly earnings were ascribed to unrealized achievements in its merchant energy portfolio as well as in various technology investments (Markham & Jerry 86). Part II- related party transactions A related party transaction can be explained as a business arrangement or deal between two parties joined by a certain relationship prior to the arrangement or the deal. A business transaction between a corporation and