Posted by Luca Aufiero.

In the article, “Dealing with Fraud in Your Building – Forensic Accounting,” Steven Cutler discusses the types of fraud among co-ops and condos, the possible red flags, as well as how it may be perpetrated and deterred. Some signs of fraud from higher management could entail sudden lifestyle changes and lavish expenditures such as new expensive cars, residences, and exotic vacations. As there isn’t as much fraud today as there used to be, back in the 90s, there were two years where roughly 140 managing agents and 25 management companies were indicted for kickbacks. “Still, even today, there are enough instances of fraud to keep busy forensic accountants, real estate attorneys, and district attorneys” (Cutler). The more common type of fraud in a company is the misappropriation of cash. For example, management may use funds from the company to pay for personal expenses or use forged bank records to run multiple books.

More often than not, fraud is perpetrated by a member of the staff. This is all starts with the fraud pyramid: motive, rationalization, and opportunity. Some employees might not be monitored as much as they should or have certain access to records, giving them an opportunity to commit fraud. The motive is most likely to reside from a personal standpoint. Possibly drug related, family problems, or more commonly, financial problems. The rationalization behind the act might be that the person “deserves it” (sense of being underpaid), or “just borrowing money temporarily” (even though it isn’t). Some red flags among the financials might include: large number of unrelated transactions, unexplained changes to reserve funds, and missing accounting records.

If fraud does occur, it is recommended to create a paper trail to document items not only for attorneys, but for forensic accountants to investigate the damages. The forensic accountant looks at the banks reconciliations, statements, canceled checks, and bills paid to have to total admission to the records. This will then result in whether the damages were from gross negligence or fraud. At that point in time, the attorney will decide if it should be a crime (especially if fraud is involved) and therefore be reported and prosecuted. Some deterrent procedures include monthly reviews/reconciliations of the financials, control over collections (lockbox), and monitoring the work of others.

Luca is a BS and MS student in accounting with a certification in forensic accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Reference:
Cutler, Steven. “Dealing with Fraud in Your Building – Forensic Accounting.” The Cooperator. Oct. 2015. Web. 20 Nov. 2015. http://cooperator.com/article/forensic-accounting

Posted by Vicki Elter.

Experts in security and legal matters claim that if Apple has to create a software tool to help agents hack into an iPhone, many people will likely misuse it. In order to use Apple’s information in court, there will need to be numerous tests and work done by forensic experts. This will create more opportunities for leaks. Although the Justice Department explained that it just wants a tool that can just be used on the San Bernardino phone, hackers and other companies could potentially have access to the Apple’s methods.

There are over 200 other cases that are interested in using Apple’s tool to unlock iPhones. Additionally, other arguments against Apple releasing this tool explain that it could encourage hackers to conduct a reverse engineering. Although the software for the tool would be destroyed after its work is done, government employees could make Apple create it again.

Apple explains that the software would need a huge amount of testing before it is used. To finish the testing, Apple would need to send it to outside experts, which would increase the chance of the tool being stolen. Additionally, defense experts would demand scrutiny of the tool.

Vicki is an accounting and management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Kyle Beck.

A company who makes sleep apnea masks has “agreed to pay $34.8 million to settle claims” that say the company paid kickbacks to suppliers that sold its products. Philips Resprionics, Inc. offered free customer support through its medSage call center, while the company’s competitors had to pay for a call center. This act made it more likely that a company would buy from Philips Resprionics Inc, and because the masks can be covered by Medicare or Medicaid programs; this is considered a kickback. Benjamin Mizer of the Justice Department said, “Kickbacks ‘in any form to induce patient referrals threatens public confidence in the health care system.”

Suppliers who bought masks from Phillips Resprionics, Inc. saved “$11.88 per year for each patient that used a Respironics mask. A supplier that had 10,000 patient customers would save $118,800 annually.” The money received from the lawsuit will be divided between 3 groups. The whistleblower Dr. Gibran Ameer will receive $5.4 million, the federal government will receive$28.7 million, and state Medicaid programs will receive $660,000.

This is a good step towards fairness, because it makes sure that no one is taking advantage for people who have medical problems.

Kyle is an economics major in the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Posted by Samar Baeshen.

According to an October 21, 2015 news article in The New York Times, “Criminals Should Get Same Leniency as Corporations,” there are many critics arguing that corporations trying to make a big effort to defend their misconducted executives ought to be treated like common criminals. In addition, Emmet G. Sullivan, a federal judge, thought that criminals should be treated like big companies. Due to Obama administration’s method which gives companies the opportunity to not have a criminal record, Judge Sullivan believes that individual criminals should enjoy the same chances. In fact, the Department of Justice officials concur with Judge Sullivan’s opinion, which criticizes the American criminal justice system, and encourage Congress to lower the adjudication standards. Meanwhile, the Justice Department issued a new memo recently and released new approaches to prosecute individual employees after years of accusations about Wall Street criminals.

According to Judge Sullivan, the court is frustrated that the postponed prosecution agreements are not being utilized to give the same chances to individual criminals without causing any negative effects on the criminal conviction. Moreover, there are lack of the postponed prosecution agreements, according to the Justice Department, for both corporations and individuals. However, comparing the number of cases against individuals and companies, cases against individual criminals are enormously more than companies.

In general, the target of the Judge Sullivan’s argument is to reduce the long Sentence for prisoners who did not commit violent crimes.

Samar is a graduate student in accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University. 

Posted by Tyquasia Yeshaya Bender.

I came across a case that interested me. A woman named Elaine Huguenin, who is photographer in the state of New Mexico, declined to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. Her reason for declining the job was due to her religious beliefs. Photographing the event would have went against her religious beliefs about same sex marriage. Because of this, the couple from the ceremony filed a discrimination complaint against Elaine Huguenin’s business, Elane Photography. The business is also co-owned with her husband, Jonathan. However, on August 22, 2013, the New Mexico Supreme Court and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission both ruled against Elane Photography. On November 8th, 2013, the business then turned to the U.S. Supreme Court to review its case.

Elaine and and her husband Jonathan Huguenin are Christians. According to the their business policy, “The Huguenins will not create images that tell stories or convey messages contrary to their religious beliefs. For this reason, they have declined requests for nude maternity pictures and photographs portraying violence.” Elane Photography explains that the Huguenins have a “sincere religious belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.” In addition, the Huguenins believe that “if they were to communicate a contrary message about marriage—by, for example, telling the story of a polygamous wedding ceremony—they would be disobeying God.” For these reasons and beliefs, Elaine declined the job.

This story started in 2006, when a woman named Vanessa Willock inquired whether Elane Photography would be willing to photograph her commitment ceremony, which happened to be same-sex. At the time, same-sex individuals were not permitted to marry in the state of New Mexico. However, the law has changed since then. The Huguenins’ business declined the request because “they did not want to create images expressing messages about marriage that conflict with their religious beliefs,” as stated before. Elane Photography has explained that it “does not refuse customers because of their sexual orientation” and the Huguenins will “gladly serve gays and lesbians—by, for example, providing them with portrait photography—whenever doing so would not require them to create expression conveying messages that conflict with their religious beliefs.”

Vanessa Willock filed an administrative complaint alleging that Elane Photography had violated the state public accommodations statute by discriminating based on sexual orientation. The complaint resulted in proceedings before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, which ruled against Elane Photography.

The First Amendment states that the government may neither establish any religion nor prohibit the free exercise of religious practices. The first part of the amendment is the Establishment Clause and the second part is the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment Clause is the provision in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits Congress from creating any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” The Free Exercise Clause is the provision in the First Amendment preventing Congress from making any law “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. (Cross, F., & Miller, R. (2015). Chapter 5: Business and the Constitution. In The Legal Environment of Business Text and Cases (9th ed., p. 643). Canada: Cengage Learning).

If the U.S. Supreme Court rules on Elane Photography’s free speech claim it may allow the Huguenins to operate their photography business without violating their religious beliefs about marriage.

Tyquasia is a business administration and retail management major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016/2017.

Posted by Tyquasia Yeshaya Bender.

I came across a case that interested me. A woman named Elaine Huguenin, who is photographer in the state of New Mexico, declined to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. Her reason for declining the job was due to her religious beliefs. Photographing the event would have went against her religious beliefs about same sex marriage. Because of this, the couple from the ceremony filed a discrimination complaint against Elaine Huguenin’s business, Elane Photography. The business is also co-owned with her husband, Jonathan. However, on August 22, 2013, the New Mexico Supreme Court and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission both ruled against Elane Photography. On November 8th, 2013, the business then turned to the U.S. Supreme Court to review its case.

Elaine and and her husband Jonathan Huguenin are Christians. According to the their business policy, “The Huguenins will not create images that tell stories or convey messages contrary to their religious beliefs. For this reason, they have declined requests for nude maternity pictures and photographs portraying violence.” Elane Photography explains that the Huguenins have a “sincere religious belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.” In addition, the Huguenins believe that “if they were to communicate a contrary message about marriage—by, for example, telling the story of a polygamous wedding ceremony—they would be disobeying God.” For these reasons and beliefs, Elaine declined the job.

This story started in 2006, when a woman named Vanessa Willock inquired whether Elane Photography would be willing to photograph her commitment ceremony, which happened to be same-sex. At the time, same-sex individuals were not permitted to marry in the state of New Mexico. However, the law has changed since then. The Huguenins’ business declined the request because “they did not want to create images expressing messages about marriage that conflict with their religious beliefs,” as stated before. Elane Photography has explained that it “does not refuse customers because of their sexual orientation” and the Huguenins will “gladly serve gays and lesbians—by, for example, providing them with portrait photography—whenever doing so would not require them to create expression conveying messages that conflict with their religious beliefs.”

Vanessa Willock filed an administrative complaint alleging that Elane Photography had violated the state public accommodations statute by discriminating based on sexual orientation. The complaint resulted in proceedings before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, which ruled against Elane Photography.

The First Amendment states that the government may neither establish any religion nor prohibit the free exercise of religious practices. The first part of the amendment is the Establishment Clause and the second part is the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment Clause is the provision in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits Congress from creating any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” The Free Exercise Clause is the provision in the First Amendment preventing Congress from making any law “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. (Cross, F., & Miller, R. (2015). Chapter 5: Business and the Constitution. In The Legal Environment of Business Text and Cases (9th ed., p. 643). Canada: Cengage Learning).

If the U.S. Supreme Court rules on Elane Photography’s free speech claim it may allow the Huguenins to operate their photography business without violating their religious beliefs about marriage.

Tyquasia is a business administration and retail management major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016/2017.

Posted by Samar Baeshen.

According to an October 21, 2015 news article in The New York Times, “Criminals Should Get Same Leniency as Corporations,” there are many critics arguing that corporations trying to make a big effort to defend their misconducted executives ought to be treated like common criminals. In addition, Emmet G. Sullivan, a federal judge, thought that criminals should be treated like big companies. Due to Obama administration’s method which gives companies the opportunity to not have a criminal record, Judge Sullivan believes that individual criminals should enjoy the same chances. In fact, the Department of Justice officials concur with Judge Sullivan’s opinion, which criticizes the American criminal justice system, and encourage Congress to lower the adjudication standards. Meanwhile, the Justice Department issued a new memo recently and released new approaches to prosecute individual employees after years of accusations about Wall Street criminals.

According to Judge Sullivan, the court is frustrated that the postponed prosecution agreements are not being utilized to give the same chances to individual criminals without causing any negative effects on the criminal conviction. Moreover, there are lack of the postponed prosecution agreements, according to the Justice Department, for both corporations and individuals. However, comparing the number of cases against individuals and companies, cases against individual criminals are enormously more than companies.

In general, the target of the Judge Sullivan’s argument is to reduce the long Sentence for prisoners who did not commit violent crimes.

Samar is a graduate student in accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University. 

Posted by Samar Baeshen.

According to an October 21, 2015 news article in The New York Times, “Criminals Should Get Same Leniency as Corporations,” there are many critics arguing that corporations trying to make a big effort to defend their misconducted executives ought to be treated like common criminals. In addition, Emmet G. Sullivan, a federal judge, thought that criminals should be treated like big companies. Due to Obama administration’s method which gives companies the opportunity to not have a criminal record, Judge Sullivan believes that individual criminals should enjoy the same chances. In fact, the Department of Justice officials concur with Judge Sullivan’s opinion, which criticizes the American criminal justice system, and encourage Congress to lower the adjudication standards. Meanwhile, the Justice Department issued a new memo recently and released new approaches to prosecute individual employees after years of accusations about Wall Street criminals.

According to Judge Sullivan, the court is frustrated that the postponed prosecution agreements are not being utilized to give the same chances to individual criminals without causing any negative effects on the criminal conviction. Moreover, there are lack of the postponed prosecution agreements, according to the Justice Department, for both corporations and individuals. However, comparing the number of cases against individuals and companies, cases against individual criminals are enormously more than companies.

In general, the target of the Judge Sullivan’s argument is to reduce the long Sentence for prisoners who did not commit violent crimes.

Samar is a graduate student in accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University. 

Posted by Tyquasia Yeshaya Bender.

I came across a case that interested me. A woman named Elaine Huguenin, who is photographer in the state of New Mexico, declined to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. Her reason for declining the job was due to her religious beliefs. Photographing the event would have went against her religious beliefs about same sex marriage. Because of this, the couple from the ceremony filed a discrimination complaint against Elaine Huguenin’s business, Elane Photography. The business is also co-owned with her husband, Jonathan. However, on August 22, 2013, the New Mexico Supreme Court and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission both ruled against Elane Photography. On November 8th, 2013, the business then turned to the U.S. Supreme Court to review its case.

Elaine and and her husband Jonathan Huguenin are Christians. According to the their business policy, “The Huguenins will not create images that tell stories or convey messages contrary to their religious beliefs. For this reason, they have declined requests for nude maternity pictures and photographs portraying violence.” Elane Photography explains that the Huguenins have a “sincere religious belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.” In addition, the Huguenins believe that “if they were to communicate a contrary message about marriage—by, for example, telling the story of a polygamous wedding ceremony—they would be disobeying God.” For these reasons and beliefs, Elaine declined the job.

This story started in 2006, when a woman named Vanessa Willock inquired whether Elane Photography would be willing to photograph her commitment ceremony, which happened to be same-sex. At the time, same-sex individuals were not permitted to marry in the state of New Mexico. However, the law has changed since then. The Huguenins’ business declined the request because “they did not want to create images expressing messages about marriage that conflict with their religious beliefs,” as stated before. Elane Photography has explained that it “does not refuse customers because of their sexual orientation” and the Huguenins will “gladly serve gays and lesbians—by, for example, providing them with portrait photography—whenever doing so would not require them to create expression conveying messages that conflict with their religious beliefs.”

Vanessa Willock filed an administrative complaint alleging that Elane Photography had violated the state public accommodations statute by discriminating based on sexual orientation. The complaint resulted in proceedings before the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, which ruled against Elane Photography.

The First Amendment states that the government may neither establish any religion nor prohibit the free exercise of religious practices. The first part of the amendment is the Establishment Clause and the second part is the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment Clause is the provision in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits Congress from creating any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” The Free Exercise Clause is the provision in the First Amendment preventing Congress from making any law “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. (Cross, F., & Miller, R. (2015). Chapter 5: Business and the Constitution. In The Legal Environment of Business Text and Cases (9th ed., p. 643). Canada: Cengage Learning).

If the U.S. Supreme Court rules on Elane Photography’s free speech claim it may allow the Huguenins to operate their photography business without violating their religious beliefs about marriage.

Tyquasia is a business administration and retail management major at Montclair State University, Class of 2016/2017.

Posted by Luca Aufiero.

In the article, “Dealing with Fraud in Your Building – Forensic Accounting,” Steven Cutler discusses the types of fraud among co-ops and condos, the possible red flags, as well as how it may be perpetrated and deterred. Some signs of fraud from higher management could entail sudden lifestyle changes and lavish expenditures such as new expensive cars, residences, and exotic vacations. As there isn’t as much fraud today as there used to be, back in the 90s, there were two years where roughly 140 managing agents and 25 management companies were indicted for kickbacks. “Still, even today, there are enough instances of fraud to keep busy forensic accountants, real estate attorneys, and district attorneys” (Cutler). The more common type of fraud in a company is the misappropriation of cash. For example, management may use funds from the company to pay for personal expenses or use forged bank records to run multiple books.

More often than not, fraud is perpetrated by a member of the staff. This is all starts with the fraud pyramid: motive, rationalization, and opportunity. Some employees might not be monitored as much as they should or have certain access to records, giving them an opportunity to commit fraud. The motive is most likely to reside from a personal standpoint. Possibly drug related, family problems, or more commonly, financial problems. The rationalization behind the act might be that the person “deserves it” (sense of being underpaid), or “just borrowing money temporarily” (even though it isn’t). Some red flags among the financials might include: large number of unrelated transactions, unexplained changes to reserve funds, and missing accounting records.

If fraud does occur, it is recommended to create a paper trail to document items not only for attorneys, but for forensic accountants to investigate the damages. The forensic accountant looks at the banks reconciliations, statements, canceled checks, and bills paid to have to total admission to the records. This will then result in whether the damages were from gross negligence or fraud. At that point in time, the attorney will decide if it should be a crime (especially if fraud is involved) and therefore be reported and prosecuted. Some deterrent procedures include monthly reviews/reconciliations of the financials, control over collections (lockbox), and monitoring the work of others.

Luca is a BS and MS student in accounting with a certification in forensic accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Reference:
Cutler, Steven. “Dealing with Fraud in Your Building – Forensic Accounting.” The Cooperator. Oct. 2015. Web. 20 Nov. 2015. http://cooperator.com/article/forensic-accounting

Posted by Robert Santos.

Usually when people go on vacation, they come home with a souvenir of some sort such as a hat or refrigerator magnet. Lauren Guerra will be going home with a little more than a silly souvenir–in fact she will be going home with 3.5 million dollars. This will be a trip to remember for Guerra but not in the way one would want. Although Guerra will be going home a very rich woman, the damage that has been done is something that all the money in the world couldn’t fix.

On October 27, 2013, Lauren Guerra was one of the many passengers on the Star Line Tours of Hollywood bus giving a tour to passengers of Hollywood. These buses are popular and very well known for they give tours of the famous locations in California, and are known for the unique design of not having a roof but a open deck level for tourists to have a better view of sites and take better pictures. Unfortunately this would be Guerra’s biggest regret, for while aboard one of these buses, a tree branch flew into her face leaving her permanently disfigured. She immediately sued the company after hearing of another death on the same type of bus under the same company. In July 2014, and has been in a back and forth battle since then.

The court battle was vigorous and both sides seemed to have fair arguments. Mark Cunningham who is the attorney for the Starline Bus Company argued that Guerra was at fault because she was standing while the bus was in motion and also was drinking prior to being on the bus. Brian Kabateck, who is Guerra’s attorney, responded by admitting his client did indeed have a drink or two before entering the bus. But there was no way anyone could of avoided this injury, sober or not. Guerra’s attorney argued Star Line could have done more to prevent the situation such as having a worker on the second level of the bus, and also having individuals scout to see what type of environment the bus routes consisted of before actually allowing the buses on them. After a day-long discussion among jurors, the court finally awarded Guerra a settlement of 3.5 million dollars.

Something says that whether you weigh the negatives or the positives, Guerra will never forget this vacation.

Robert is a philosophy major at Seton Hall University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Robert Santos.

Usually when people go on vacation, they come home with a souvenir of some sort such as a hat or refrigerator magnet. Lauren Guerra will be going home with a little more than a silly souvenir–in fact she will be going home with 3.5 million dollars. This will be a trip to remember for Guerra but not in the way one would want. Although Guerra will be going home a very rich woman, the damage that has been done is something that all the money in the world couldn’t fix.

On October 27, 2013, Lauren Guerra was one of the many passengers on the Star Line Tours of Hollywood bus giving a tour to passengers of Hollywood. These buses are popular and very well known for they give tours of the famous locations in California, and are known for the unique design of not having a roof but a open deck level for tourists to have a better view of sites and take better pictures. Unfortunately this would be Guerra’s biggest regret, for while aboard one of these buses, a tree branch flew into her face leaving her permanently disfigured. She immediately sued the company after hearing of another death on the same type of bus under the same company. In July 2014, and has been in a back and forth battle since then.

The court battle was vigorous and both sides seemed to have fair arguments. Mark Cunningham who is the attorney for the Starline Bus Company argued that Guerra was at fault because she was standing while the bus was in motion and also was drinking prior to being on the bus. Brian Kabateck, who is Guerra’s attorney, responded by admitting his client did indeed have a drink or two before entering the bus. But there was no way anyone could of avoided this injury, sober or not. Guerra’s attorney argued Star Line could have done more to prevent the situation such as having a worker on the second level of the bus, and also having individuals scout to see what type of environment the bus routes consisted of before actually allowing the buses on them. After a day-long discussion among jurors, the court finally awarded Guerra a settlement of 3.5 million dollars.

Something says that whether you weigh the negatives or the positives, Guerra will never forget this vacation.

Robert is a philosophy major at Seton Hall University, Class of 2016.