SEC Charges Tyson Foods with FCPA Violations

Feb 10, 2011- Tyson Foods was charged with violation the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act because it's operations in Mexico bribed veternarians to certify chickens to be fit for export.  First, the wives of the vets were put on payroll for doing nothing, then the vets were allowed to pad billing. Internal controls of the company took two years to catch up to the fraudulent practice.
While the SEC isn't the FDA, one must wonder....what about the chicken?  Where the chickens fit or not? 
This is an example of the "follow the money" cliche'.  The implications of fraud extend beyond the boundaries of accounting even into public health and safety.

http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-42.htm

HSBC Was Told About Bernard Madoff Fund ‘Fraud Risks’ in Two KPMG Reports

     There was an article published by Bloomberg which talks about how HSBC, Europe's biggest lender, had been warned about possible fraud and operational risks associated with Madoff LLC.  HSBC served as custodian for over 12 funds and $8 billion dollars.  The accounting firm of KPMG had been hired by HSBC to review how Madoff's investment behavior. The firm reported 28 risks between 2006 and 2008 due to limited internal controls. 
     What the KPMG failed to do was give evidence of whether or Madoff was indeed commmitting fraud, or simply had weak internal controls.  After the fact, HSBC believes that Madoff merely tricked the accounting firm by forging some documents.
     I would think that to some degree that KPMG was at fault.  They never tested any of the risks that they reported to HSBC.  But, is that a fault of KPMG.  I'm not sure that I fully understand the type of engagement that KPMG had accepted from HSBC.  It clearly was not an audit but a simple review. 
    As a result of HSBC not demanding a full audit, the institution lost $1billion of it's own funds to the Madoff scam.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-18/hsbc-was-told-about-bernard-madoff-fund-fraud-risks-in-two-kpmg-reports.html
    It is imperative that accounting firms make absolutely sure of their clientele's integrity.  The firm may have gained business in the short term but will eventually lose more than it gained.  The failure of so many entities to detect the Bernie Madoff fraud, has far reaching implications as far as the public's trust in the markets and the SEC.

Ex-Diebold CFOs Charged with Fraud

     In an article from CFO.com dated June 2, 2010, Diebold, the maker of ATM and voting machines was under SEC investigation of it's financials.  The allegations are that Diebold did not properly record revenues and used hold and delay tactics to change it's financials to the tune of $127M.  While not admitting to any wrongdoing, the company's former CEO has agreed to pay the company back for compensation and bonuses and stock options during the period that the company was allegedly committing fraud.  The payback is called a "clawback" and is one of the provisions of Sarbanes Oxley.
   So, why would a CFO commit fraud?  Is it not enough to achieve the level of success it takes to be appointed CFO?  Why not quit when you are asked to do something that is totally unethical?  How valued is ethics to an organization looking to hire a new CFO?

How Much is Enough?

How much is enough?
An ex-board member of Goldman Sachs was present during a teleconference meeting in which Goldman decided to invest $5B into Berkshire Hathaway.  The board member calls his friend right after the meeting, allegedly gives him the information, the friend buys 175,000 shares of Goldman stock right before the closing bell.  Next day the friend sells the shares for a tidy profit which turned out to be nearly $1million dollars.
Not only does the board member sit on the board of Goldman Sachs but has also sat on the boards of Proctor and Gamble and AMR.
Apparently that was only the tip of the iceberg; the SEC alleges other instances with similar profits made totally somewhere close to $1B in profits due to insider trading.  How much is enough?