First, we will examine at the divorce case of Cary and Elle Bronson. When circumscribing an even-handed division of assets for the divorce, an appraisal of the restaurant they owned was gained. Despite, the appraisal came back curiously low. ‘The appraisal rendered would not be enough to maintain the lifestyle the Bronson’s had affirmed which involved driving a Bentley and transferring their children to private schools’. It is momentarily up to Mark, Elle’s attorney to find out if the appraisal is correct, and if so wherever did Cary come up with the cash to support his family’s lifestyle.
In sequence to determine the value of a business, you first require to accumulate the following documents: ‘tax returns, financial reports, general ledgers, bank statements, business plans, balance sheets, and payroll records’. Once these materials have been obtained, which must be rendered as part of the examination process, then it should be careful to see if the valuation is accurate.
If the documents appear to the low value, the last five years of documents should be concerned. If Cary knew the marriage was in crisis and that Elle had moved back from the business to care for their kids, Cary might have started to underestimate the sales totals to show less income and lower valuation of the restaurant. ‘One way to decide if the total sales recorded match what the total sales should be is to attract individual server sales reports for assigned dates and match those totals to the sales reported on the financial accounts’.
Now if the sales have shown match what is expected, however, the costs seem to be higher than expected checking payroll records would see if one person is making an unusually high salary, perhaps the person with whom Cary is having an affair. If the payroll was on track, but the operating costs appear high, sample examination ‘of invoices from the general ledger should be done'(Wells, 2001). These tests should concentrate on any new vendor, the vendor with unusually high sales, or anything else that seems irregular. This is a different way Cary could be protecting the assets is by fixing up an account under the different corporation and paying fake invoices to conceal the money.
Ere any divorce settlement is made Elle obligation to have a full investigation of all perspectives of Cary’s financial expenses. I would hire a special investigator to decide what Cary is doing with his money. I would study into the mistress and observe if her financial situation has progressed lately or if she has registered for any new businesses or dba’s that could be shell companies formulated to hide money. The most significant in any divorce compensation is to be stable and not act quickly out of emotion before all the evidence have been brought to knowledge.
The next case is concerning Andrus and his employer Ye Old Troubadour. Andrus had been a long time committed employee who had ascended the ranks over his 15-year occupation until he reached his current profession of the manager. Lately, an employee asked to talk to Carmela, a manager in the audit office, regarding her doubts that Andrus was stealing money from the cash drawer. The complainant had recorded Andrus office just after another employee had dropped off their cash drawer and found him hiding something in his drawer. His demeanor seemed flustered, out of the norm for Andrus, which aroused the employee’s suspicions and cause the incident to be reported. While that one situation could be easily overlooked as a misunderstanding, maybe he was hiding something personal he had out, Carmela remembered an earlier conversation where it was reported cash collections had been low over the last few months.
While Andrus was a well-liked manager and a long time employee that does not lessen the chances that he was embezzling from the company, while there are many reasons people steal, the majority begin when an employee who feels they are under appreciated hits a time of economic need. Without knowing what is going on in Andrus’s personal life, we can assume that becoming manager was a goal he had set out for himself, thinking once he achieves that level his financial future would have a brighter outlook. Many employees assume promotions will come with substantial raises, which often disappoint the employee when they find the actual amount of the increase. Andrus could have expected to make more as a manager and been disappointed at the lack of increase provided. Andrus could also have made a lifestyle change that cost more than the increased salary could provide placing him under a financial burden. No matter the reason fraud cannot happen without the opportunity, which Andrus has now that the cash drawers are left in his office at the end of the cashiers’ shifts. Andrus being such a long time employee would have had to rationalize with himself that he deserved the money and therefore it was ok for him to steal, which leads me to believe he did not feel he was fairly compensated for his role.
To be able to prove Andrus is stealing the first thing that should be done is to do surprise counts of the cash banks. Since cash has been low over the past three months, there is plenty of reason to do a surprise audit without singling anyone out as a target. Matching the cashier’s cash counts at the end of the night to what is reported would be the first step. If the cashier that dropped off her drawer to Andrus showed, it has $5500 at the end of her shift, however, the next day it only had $3500 that could raise one red flag. Also pulling all receipts and sales slips for the last month could tie back any cash purchases that were not adequately recorded. Besides, installing security cameras in all areas where cash is handled is recommended. Checking employee’s financial accounts or expenses would also help designate any significant cash flow. Though, this can only be achieved voluntarily or via a warrant.
The defense will no skepticism attempt to say that their consumer was set up or that the investigation was a witch hunt and plan to get rid of him. This is why it is essential to cast a broad net when doing the investigation to ensure it is not concentrated entirely ‘against Andrus, which is why the lower money collections should be the cause of the examination, and the observer should only be a part of the evidence collected’. If the investigation is completed accurately with enough proof collected in the company can give everyone who had access to the money was impartially examined. The defense attorney would also strike the trustworthiness of the witness testimony, primarily since she did not see Andrus take the money. While all indications are pointing to the crime of Andrus, all investigations should be commenced with an ‘open mind willing to follow the indication where it leads'(Burnoski, 2015). It could be the worker who reported Andrus who was stealing and unless thought Andrus was catching on or just wanted a victim and so reported Andrus. The most significant lesson is to take time, and do not jump to actions alternatively ensure all the required facts are accumulated before making any allegations.