Unethical Practices and Behavior in AccountingUnethical Practices and Behavior in AccountingEthics and accounting, some people may think this is just an analogy for oil and water in that they do not mix. Within any business there are always chances of someone pursuing unethical practices either to climb the cooperate ladder or try to and hide with some kind of under hand dealings. The definition for unethical is not conforming to approved standards of social or professional behavior. Some of the most common unethical practices are business espionage, fake customer testimonials, and promising something new and better (Tough Biz, 2011). Along with unethical practices there are also unethical behaviors that consist of deliberate deception, failure to honor commitments, and a disregard of company policy (Duff, n.d.). These practices and behaviors may not seem harsh but could damage a company to the point of closing its doors. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) established to curtails such unethical practices and behaviors to ensure a company complies with the regulations stated in the act.
Today more than ever companies are trying to remain competitive in the business world using any little slight of hand trick to a full blown Ponzi scheme to compete for business. This brings companies to the brink in using unethical practices to remain above water. These practices like business espionage seek out important corporate trade secrets that may benefit their own business agendas. Espionage has been since the beginning of time hiring of a new employee who sticks around long enough to learn the company secrets and continues on to the competition. Second, there are more websites sites out today listing fake testimonials from doctors to lawyers giving favorable reviews and testimonials only to boost business reputation and reliability. Third, some companies want to paint a picture of themselves as innovative and trendsetter by promising new and better products and services (Tough
) and then promoting the same products and services (Flexy
and FreeStyle
)
“The real problem with this Ponzi scheme is that its most well established and profitable companies (and government agencies) do not have the expertise needed to keep companies from profiting from the fraud that is being engineered and perpetuated by these companies and their customers.” ― Thomas Jefferson to Dr. William J. Fisk in 1819
An employee, William J. Fisk, was found guilty on one count as part of an unlicensed and unauthorized sale and exchange of an unregistered stock on December 22, 1819. Fisk was allegedly the main dealer for the stock. Although Fisk was a former manager, his name was still listed in the company’s “stock” listings. However, the stock was never in his possession and became unlisted for unknown reasons. As a result, the company never made any profits due to Fisk’s illegal use of stock with a value of more than $4 million and the company is now unable to continue in business. In addition, as Fisk was a licensed broker, his name was the owner of a company that was involved in an extensive conspiracy to commit financial crimes. The conspiracies included the theft of $34,300,000 worth of securities (including more than $12 million paid to a company named Jack and the Jaws, Inc. and the $12 million that Jack acquired at a private brokerage company held in the state of Indiana) and the fraudulent filing of fraudulent financial reports, all of which the Indiana State Police concluded were motivated by money laundering, money laundering, and money transmitting. The Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1934 and the securities trading laws of 1938 were both implemented to prevent the illegal conduct of Ponzi schemes by major banks and real estate buyers. In other words, what is the most important asset for the U.S. Treasury to protect against a Ponzi scheme is financial safety and security, which was an asset that was purchased and purchased out of desperation by investors seeking to minimize losses. The U.S. Treasury is not the only nation that has a Ponzi scheme (e.g. Mexico, Russia, and China).
“When I went into the White House in 2004, I called Treasury Secretary Michael Rubin and asked him to take action on the Ponzi scheme. At his initial response, Mr. Rubin responded that the Treasury had no authority to punish a private investor who sold a risky piece of legislation; [it] wasn’t the Treasury that issued the Securities Act; or the Securities Exchange Act; or the Securities Investor Protection Act; but the Secretary’s interpretation of “responsible” as more restrictive than the rest.” ― Treasury Secretary Rubin and White House Counsel Robert P. Wilson.
During the last several years, Treasury Secretary Michael Rubin has continued to support policies that prevent and limit Ponzi schemes. He has supported the use of “safe and reliable banking facilities” (SOCC) to cover up securities fraud and related securities fraud, to ensure fair lending to Wall Street brokers for their clients’ benefit, and to prevent and protect real estate and other real estate assets associated with Ponzi schemes (including the Ponzi scheme and its beneficiaries), as well as a slew of other actions aimed at strengthening the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. Among the first actions taken after the financial crisis was the establishment of an Ombudsman to provide a fair and accessible process for companies that have done business with U.S. government funds. The Ombudsman