Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Doris Index
Doris Index
1 Nature of acct
Public interest&self-in, decision-making (govern,accountability,ethical),enlighted self-int, 1 1-6
professionalism&entrepreneurialism(4E),profession,self-regulation&co-regulation,professional,trust&credibility 1-2 6-10
traditional vs market control view 11
Attributes ofbody
1.systematic profession-8-Greenwood:
of theory and knowledge, 2. extensive education 3.service to community 4. high autonomy and
independence, 5. code of ethics 6. distinctive ethos or culture 7. professional judgment, 8. existence of a governing 3 12-17
body
2 Regulatory process
reason, past &now, Co-regulatory(Corp Act,FRC,APESB,ASIC & CPA...) 5 18
Quality Assurance-APES320/ Professional discipline(member compaint 8步骤),penalty 6 19
4 Credibility challenges
IFAC 4 issues(creative acct,poor audit quality,audit independ,finc acct distoritions),restoring. 10 34-36
M2 Ethics
1 concept (professionalðics) & impact
Professional ethics,ethic principles// Impact on 2 level-indi&profession, ethical dilemma-Dr Kidder 11 43-45
challenges (IFAC research): issues- misleading reporting> fraud& tax evasion> transparency and
confidentiality.Reason- pressure client>conflic intrest>manager //work environment 46
Part
2&3 1.conflicts of interest /2.remunation, incentives,commision&soft-dollar benefit /3. inducements(gift,hospitality)/
4.respond to NOCLAR(obtain matter-address-determine whether further action-whether disclosure-documentation)
/5.preparation information(pressure-SG.consultation with superiors)/ 6.acting sufficient expertise-training,time 21-26
more /7.pressure to breach the fundamental principles 74-86
Part3 additional: 1Professional appointment(communication, referral-authorisation), 2second opinion-
authorize,3custody clients assets 86
Part4 indepedence=objective+integrity,special purpose FS,audit and review engagement表格SG,(provision of non-
assurance service to an audit client-self0review,self-interest),assurance engagement 26-28 88-91
2second opinion-authorize
3custody clients assets
(a) Who are the stakeholders? The ethical issues will most likely arise out of
conflicting interests between and among the stakeholders. The stakeholders can
be listed as follows.
– Davis :he has knowledge of the accounting manipulation and feels he has an
obligation to act on this information.
– The CEO of the parent company :he or she is ultimately responsible for the
fair presentation of the financial reports; in this case, the CEO will ultimately be
held accountable for the manipulation or may, in fact, be the instigator.
– The external auditors: they have signed off on the accounts that are
potentially misleading.
(b) What are the ethical issues? Most of these concern Davis’s integrity,
namely:
– his integrity versus his job security
– his integrity versus his loyalty to the firm
– his integrity versus the reputation of the external auditors
– his integrity versus the reputation of the parent company’s CEO
– the company’s financial health versus the unions’ right to information.
An ethical issue or dilemma arises when there are two or more equally
compelling courses of action
without clear resolution. The conflict could involve two or more obligations,
duties, principles, rules or
loyalties. But irrespective of the nature of the conflict, the two principles, duties
and so on, contradict each
other. Similarly, each alternative has negative and positive outcomes, and
choosing one alternative will
come at the expense of the other.
In this case, Davis’s integrity is at odds with his self-interest and the interests
of the company as well as
with external parties such as the shareholders and the union. In brief, if Davis
remains silent, he protects
his self-interest, but this comes at a cost to the unions and shareholders (who act
according to diminished
information) and to his own integrity. If Davis acts on this information, he
protects his integrity but it
may disadvantage his career. Each alternative Davis faces produces negative and
positive outcomes and
supports different principles.
principles threats Circumstance
two parties-p74
fee level,contingent
Self-interest fee,referral feep77
Self-interest,familiarity,intimidation p80
integrity,objectivity self-interest
professional competence and due care
intimidation
integrity,professional behavior,competence
and due care self-interest, profe competence and due care
intimidation
SG
p75
P78
p80
consultationxxx
obtain additional training,tome avaiable,assisstence from other
nomination committee
FRC ASX
Remuneration committee
FRC ASX
member min 3(or2), all independent min 3, majority independent
Chair of committee not board chair independent
Risk committee
FRC ASX
X min 3, majority independent
x independent