I was employed as a certified public accountant (CPA) for a regional accounting firm that specialized in audits of financial institutions and had many local clients. My responsibilities included supervising staff, collecting evidence to support financial statement assertions, and compiling work papers for managers and partners to review. During the audit of a publicly traded bank, I discovered that senior bank executives were under investigation by the FDIC for removing funds from the bank. They were also believed to be using bank funds to pay corporate credit card bills for gas and spouses’ expenses. The last allegation noted that the executives were issuing loans to relatives without proper collateral. After reviewing the work papers, I found two checks made payable to one executive of the bank that were selected during a cash count from two tellers. There was no indication based on our sampling that expenses were being paid for spouses. My audit manager and the chief financial officer (CFO) of my firm were aware of these problems. After the fieldwork for the audit was completed, I was called into the CEO’s office. The CEO and the chief operating officer (COO) stated that the FDIC examiners wanted to interview the audit manager, two staff accountants, and me. The CEO then asked the following question: “If you were asked by the FDIC about a check or checks made payable to bank executives, how would you answer? I told them I wouldanswer the FDIC examiners by stating that, during our audit, we made copies of two checks payable loan executive of the bank for $8,000 each. The COO stated that during his review of the audit work papers he had not found any copies of the checks made payable to executives. He also stated that a better response to the question regarding the checks would be, “I was not aware of reviewing any checks specifically made payable to the executive in question.” The COO then said that the examiners would be in the following day to speak with the audit staff. I was dismissed from the meeting. Neither the CEO nor the COO asked me if the suggested “better” response was the response I would give, and I did not volunteer the information. During the interview, the FDIC investigators never asked me whether I knew about the checks. Should I have volunteered this information?

Questions 1. What would you have done? Volunteered the information or stayed silent? Explain your decision. 2. Was anything unethical going on in this case? Explain. 3. Describe the “ethics” of the officers of the firm in this case. What if anything, should the officers have done, and why? 4. What lessons, if any, can you take from this case, as an employee working under company officials who have more power than you do? Use two theories of ethics to discuss this problem.

1.) It depends on an individual position and conscience. If I am stuck in such a situation with people of CEO, COO etc stand i'd be worried about not only my job but also about my career. As these kinda instances can dismantle your career and can have a lasting effect.In my case i'd not have volunteered as the CEO,COO have the power to dissappear information and documents. It would be a blind move if i go and volunteer for it and they documents are not found. However, if the situation is different and i am in possession of those copies of cheques then i'd be blunt in sharing the same to concerned authorities. Also if you have the evidence with you ,no position can coerce you into doing anything once you provide it to concerned authorities because then you have the edge.

2.) loans without sufficient collateral, drawing cheques in spouses's names,paying of personal expenses from corporate credits etc.,

These are just allegations ,if none of them are proved in the court or inquiry ,then these are mere allegations. if however,are supported by evidences,these can be a case if unethical practices.

3.) The ethics of a professional Accountant are-

a.) objectivity- Seeing the things as they are with no bias. Assuming everything that you work for as something pure and respect your work in any way possible.

b.) honesty- One who stands honest with his job are poster figures for any department or organisation a person work on or for. It is implied for anyone to be honest to his work.

c.) Professional competence- An employees is supposed to be of professional competence to his work and organisation. He is required to keep.his knowledge update to that level.of oragnisation's requirement.

d.) Confidentiality- is what the Job descripition states. An accountant by profession is not allowed in any way to share the information of his clients or organisation unless law specifies it so.

e.) Professional Behaviour- A professional behaviour. includes reaching the work on time,completion.of duties to the firm , work within the organisation for its betterment etc. It is in the job description in any organisation

4.) FDIC'S OFFICERS should have been more careful and diligent while working on the case. Each and every department concerned to the alleged wrongdoers sould have been checked for evidences which they clearly didnot do. They were not 100% vigilant with their work which is what made the situation awkard for you.

5.) lesson's that can be learnt are- Business are way too practical and decisions have to be made on the merit of the situation. You can follow your gut in business just as you do or can in life. But sometimws all it takes is one moment that gets you in a position where nobody can touch. In this instance if you had those copies of cheques in your possession,no CEO ,or COO can coerce you into doing anything and at that moment it solely depends upon your reading of the situation.

answervulnerability assessment;