New Year Sale 2026! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

ACFE CFE-Fraud-Prevention-and-Deterrence Exam - Topic 3 Question 87 Discussion

Actual exam question for ACFE's CFE-Fraud-Prevention-and-Deterrence exam
Question #: 87
Topic #: 3
[All CFE-Fraud-Prevention-and-Deterrence Questions]

During an external audit, the audit team identifies evidence that management has Intentionally manipulated the organization's reported revenue amount However, the amount of the resulting misstatement does not meet the quantitative materiality threshold for the audit. Which of the following is TRUE regarding this situation?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

by Tamera at Jul 02, 2024, 04:18 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium CFE-Fraud-Prevention-and-Deterrence Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Alease
3 months ago
How can they just brush off intentional manipulation? Feels wrong.
upvoted 0 times
...
Brynn
3 months ago
I think option A makes sense, gotta reconsider the evidence.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alease
4 months ago
Wait, so they can just ignore it if it's under the threshold? That seems off.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kattie
4 months ago
I disagree, they should still look into the reliability of the evidence!
upvoted 0 times
...
Justine
4 months ago
Definitely option D, misstatement is below the threshold.
upvoted 0 times
...
Marshall
4 months ago
I vaguely recall something about not assuming all evidence is unreliable just because of one issue. So, option B seems too extreme to me.
upvoted 0 times
...
Malcom
5 months ago
I feel like option D might be too simplistic. Just because the misstatement is below the threshold doesn't mean it should be ignored completely, right?
upvoted 0 times
...
Ruby
5 months ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I think we practiced a question where the auditors had to consider the implications of fraud, regardless of materiality. That makes me lean towards option C.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mireya
5 months ago
I remember discussing how auditors need to evaluate the reliability of evidence, especially if there's manipulation involved. So, option A seems like it could be correct.
upvoted 0 times
...
Audra
5 months ago
I'm not sure about this one. The fact that management intentionally manipulated the revenue is concerning, even if the amount doesn't meet the threshold. I'll need to think this through carefully.
upvoted 0 times
...
Avery
5 months ago
Ah, this is straightforward. If the misstatement is below materiality, we can just consider it immaterial and move on. No need to overcomplicate things.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shalon
5 months ago
I've got a strategy - I'll focus on evaluating the reliability of the audit evidence we've collected so far. That should help me determine the best course of action here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Pearly
5 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit confused. If the misstatement is below the materiality threshold, can we really ignore it? Seems like there could be more going on that we need to investigate.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dorinda
5 months ago
This is a tricky one. I'll need to carefully review the evidence and consider the implications, even if the misstatement doesn't meet the materiality threshold.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kiera
5 months ago
I'm a little confused by this question. There are a lot of different cybercrime laws, and I'm not sure which one would apply in this specific case. I'll have to review my notes and try to reason through the options.
upvoted 0 times
...
Reyes
5 months ago
Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. The adapter and the desktop agent seem like the logical choices to enable the PCoIP metrics monitoring for the Horizon environment.
upvoted 0 times
...
Yong
5 months ago
I'm a bit unsure about this one. Modifying the Diagnostics settings feels like it might not be the complete solution. I'll need to double-check the details to make sure I'm not missing anything.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lorean
10 months ago
Hold up, hold up. Did someone say 'immaterial'? Sounds like the perfect excuse to kick back and enjoy a nice cup of coffee during the audit. As long as the numbers add up, who cares about a little creative accounting, am I right?
upvoted 0 times
Bok
8 months ago
It's crucial to follow ethical guidelines and report financial information accurately, regardless of materiality thresholds.
upvoted 0 times
...
Laine
8 months ago
Manipulating revenue figures, even if not material, can still impact the overall credibility of the financial statements.
upvoted 0 times
...
Grover
9 months ago
Ethical standards require accurate and transparent financial information, regardless of materiality thresholds.
upvoted 0 times
...
Helga
9 months ago
It's important to maintain integrity in financial reporting, even if the misstatement is not quantitatively material.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Charlesetta
10 months ago
Bah, who cares about the legal definition of fraud? These managers are clearly trying to cook the books. The auditors should just slap them with a big fine and call it a day. What a bunch of jokers!
upvoted 0 times
Shawnda
9 months ago
Maybe the auditors can still report it to the authorities, even if it's not considered material for the audit.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jimmie
9 months ago
I agree, it's frustrating when things like this slip through the cracks. But the auditors have to follow the rules.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tammi
10 months ago
Yeah, it's definitely shady what they're doing. But if it doesn't meet the materiality threshold, there might not be much the auditors can do.
upvoted 0 times
...
Krystina
10 months ago
The auditors need to take action, even if it's not considered fraud.
upvoted 0 times
...
Royce
10 months ago
It may not meet the materiality threshold, but it's still unethical.
upvoted 0 times
...
Javier
10 months ago
We should still report this to the appropriate authorities.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Magdalene
10 months ago
I think option D is the way to go here. If the misstatement doesn't meet the materiality threshold, then it's essentially immaterial to the audit. The auditors shouldn't get caught up in the drama - they need to stay focused on the big picture.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dortha
11 months ago
I believe the auditors should only consider the evidence if they can determine that the actions meet the legal definition of fraud.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ben
11 months ago
I agree with Alesia. Even if the misstatement is not quantitatively material, it still raises concerns about management integrity.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alesia
11 months ago
I think the auditors should reconsider the reliability of the audit evidence.
upvoted 0 times
...
Breana
11 months ago
Hmm, this is a tricky one. The auditors should definitely reconsider the reliability of the evidence they've obtained, but withdrawing from the engagement seems a bit extreme. I'm not sure if they should solely focus on the legal definition of fraud either.
upvoted 0 times
Alease
10 months ago
D) The auditors should regard the misstatement as immaterial to the audit because the omitted amount is less than the quantitative materiality threshold
upvoted 0 times
...
Macy
10 months ago
Hmm, this is a tricky one. The auditors should definitely reconsider the reliability of the evidence they've obtained, but withdrawing from the engagement seems a bit extreme.
upvoted 0 times
...
Haydee
10 months ago
C) The auditors should only consider the evidence if they can determine that the actions meet the legal definition of fraud.
upvoted 0 times
...
Earnestine
10 months ago
A) The auditors should reconsider the reliability of the audit evidence they have previously obtained.
upvoted 0 times
...
...

Save Cancel