Register to read the introduction…
He knowingly signed and released inaccurate reports during this time period.
As a co-founder and CEO of MicroStrategies, Michael Saylor was a controlling shareholder and top executive officer. The SEC stated that he “…signed the periodic reports and participated in the negotiation of several of the largest restated deals (SEC, 2000).”
As a co-founder of MicroStrategies, Sanjeev Bansal’s was active in the negotiations of some of the deals which were restated and signed many of the contracts of which the revenues were improperly recognized (SEC, 2000). As the Corporate Controller, Antoinette A. Parsons, had visibility and firsthand knowledge of the inconsistent and/or improper adherence to GAAP guidelines and SEC reporting. Because she had known about the practices and did not raise any flags nor did she report the practices to the appropriate parties, she was considered a responsible party in the case.
Stacey L. Hamm was the Accounting Manager who reported to Parsons at the time of the scandal. She, too, had visibility and firsthand knowledge of the lack of compliance to GAAP standards, through the company practices and did nothing to correct the issues. Final …show more content…
The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants or AICPA had developed five divisions of ethical principles that its members were expected to follow. Those principles are “independence, integrity, and objectivity”, “competence and technical standards”, “responsibilities to clients”, “responsibilities to colleagues”, and “other responsibilities and practices” (Sellers, 1981). And even after the recent onslaught of scandals, some of the responsibilities of regulation in public companies have been transferred from them to the government in order to create the Public Accounting Oversight Board or PCAOB, the AICPA does retain a good deal of authority in this …show more content…
The blatant disregard for good practices, shown by the Parsons, Company Controller and Hamm, Accounting Manager, when they recognized that the company’s policies or practices were not in alignment with GAAP guidelines and incompliant with SEC regulations. Even though these two individuals may not have been directly responsible for the backdating of the contracts and/or the release of false revenues to the public, because they did not raise any red flags, ask any questions or report their findings to the appropriate people, they effectively participated in the deception.
In short, if you know there are violations being made at your company, you have one of two choices. You can bring it to the attention of the appropriate parties or you can alert no one and face the possibility of repercussions. Let us remember that may mean prison, loss of professional status and designation, jeopardize your career potential or a number of other unpleasant
As a co-founder and CEO of MicroStrategies, Michael Saylor was a controlling shareholder and top executive officer. The SEC stated that he “…signed the periodic reports and participated in the negotiation of several of the largest restated deals (SEC, 2000).”
As a co-founder of MicroStrategies, Sanjeev Bansal’s was active in the negotiations of some of the deals which were restated and signed many of the contracts of which the revenues were improperly recognized (SEC, 2000). As the Corporate Controller, Antoinette A. Parsons, had visibility and firsthand knowledge of the inconsistent and/or improper adherence to GAAP guidelines and SEC reporting. Because she had known about the practices and did not raise any flags nor did she report the practices to the appropriate parties, she was considered a responsible party in the case.
Stacey L. Hamm was the Accounting Manager who reported to Parsons at the time of the scandal. She, too, had visibility and firsthand knowledge of the lack of compliance to GAAP standards, through the company practices and did nothing to correct the issues. Final …show more content…
The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants or AICPA had developed five divisions of ethical principles that its members were expected to follow. Those principles are “independence, integrity, and objectivity”, “competence and technical standards”, “responsibilities to clients”, “responsibilities to colleagues”, and “other responsibilities and practices” (Sellers, 1981). And even after the recent onslaught of scandals, some of the responsibilities of regulation in public companies have been transferred from them to the government in order to create the Public Accounting Oversight Board or PCAOB, the AICPA does retain a good deal of authority in this …show more content…
The blatant disregard for good practices, shown by the Parsons, Company Controller and Hamm, Accounting Manager, when they recognized that the company’s policies or practices were not in alignment with GAAP guidelines and incompliant with SEC regulations. Even though these two individuals may not have been directly responsible for the backdating of the contracts and/or the release of false revenues to the public, because they did not raise any red flags, ask any questions or report their findings to the appropriate people, they effectively participated in the deception.
In short, if you know there are violations being made at your company, you have one of two choices. You can bring it to the attention of the appropriate parties or you can alert no one and face the possibility of repercussions. Let us remember that may mean prison, loss of professional status and designation, jeopardize your career potential or a number of other unpleasant