The Impact of Federal Regulations on Identifying, Preventing, and Eliminating Corporate Fraud

By Alleyne, Beverley J.; Elson, Raymond J. | Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, January 1, 2013 | Go to article overview

The Impact of Federal Regulations on Identifying, Preventing, and Eliminating Corporate Fraud


Alleyne, Beverley J., Elson, Raymond J., Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues


ABSTRACT

Fraud appears rampant in the United States and reports seem to indicate an increasing trend despite the many regulations currently in place by government and private enterprises. This study determines if identifying, eliminating, and preventing corporate fraud is possible using the current regulations and deterrents in place, namely the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934, and the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002. The study revealed that the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 is more effective than the Securities Acts of 1933-1934 in identifying, eliminating, and preventing corporate fraud. The study's main limitations are (a) all frauds and misrepresentations that occurred in corporations may not be reported to the Association Certified Fraud Examiners, and (b) the data presented is limited to the length of time that the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners was collecting, recording and reporting corporate fraud.

Key Words: Sarbanes Oxley Act, Securities Act, legislation, corporate fraud

INTRODUCTION

The Securities and Exchange Commission's Federal Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934, and the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) are two of the most powerful pieces of legislation developed with the intent to curb and in many cases, eliminate corporate fraud. The 1933 and 1934 Federal Securities Acts were developed as a result of October 1929 crash of the United States stock market, and SOX was developed as a direct result of the collapse of energy giant Enron among others. Are these legislations accomplishing their goals? Is it even possible to stop fraud from occurring? The SOX report card has mixed reviews and divided opinions - three years after the law was enacted, the question remains - has it made a proven difference in the level of corporate fraud? The question of effectiveness and worth remains the topic of much debate (Sweeney, 2005).

This paper examines the effectiveness of legislation, specifically the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934, and SOX, in identifying, preventing, and eliminating corporate fraud.

BACKGROUND

What started as accounting scandals quickly evolved into full-blown corporate fraud at companies such as Tyco, WorldCom, Global Crossing and Adelphia, to name a few. In 2008, a mere seven years after the Enron debacle, the United States economy crashed. The housing bubble, banking and credit-market crisis, and the subprime failure have all been identified as the culprits. Businesses failed, corporations collapsed and millions of jobs were lost. Consumer confidence is now at a new low. Huge banks such Washington Mutual, the nation's largest savings and loan bank was dismantled and brokered the sales of the company to JP Morgan Chase (Block, 2008). Other giant mortgage companies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and automobiles behemoths like General Motors were unable to exist without immediate governmental financial aid. Corporate mismanagement and fraud were just a few of the reasons provided as the cause of these collapses.

Federal securities transactions are regulated by several statutes and the most important ones are the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 and the Securities Act of 1934. These acts attempted to make market competition vigorous by demanding fair and full exposure in the marketplace of all material information (Cronin, Evansburg, & Garfinkle-Huff, 2001). The purpose of the 1933 Act is to provide fair and full disclosure of the character of securities sold in foreign commerce, interstate commerce, and through the mail, and to stop fraud in the sale of securities. The 1933 and 1934 Securities Acts and the US Supreme Court rulings viewed securities as stock of closely held companies and therefore subject to antifraud provisions of the Acts (Quinlivan, 1992).

SOX was signed into law on July 31, 2002. Congress instituted SOX in the wake of Enron's demise. Facing political pressure to act, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate immediately approved a package of reforms by near-unanimous approval (Dodwell, 2008). …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • A full archive of books and articles related to this one
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

The Impact of Federal Regulations on Identifying, Preventing, and Eliminating Corporate Fraud
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

    Already a member? Log in now.