Operational Engagement

 

A ccording to Sawyer’s Internal Auditing, an operational engagement involves “the review of a function or process to appraise the efficiency and economy of operations and the effectiveness with which those functions achieve their objectives.”  A comparison of actual and standard costs addresses efficiency and economy issues.

Internal audit plan

An internal audit plan normally focuses on the following: unacceptable current risks requiring management action, control systems on which the organization is most reliant, areas where the difference between inherent risk and residual risk is great, and areas where inherent risk is very high.

-- 

External assessment

External assessments of an internal audit activity contain an expressed opinion as to the entire spectrum of assurance and consulting work performed (or that should have been performed under its charter), including (but not limited to) conformance with the Definition of Internal Auditing, the Code of Ethics, and theStandards. An external assessment also includes, as appropriate, recommendations for improvement (PA 1312-1, para. 2). On completion of the review, a formal communication should be given to senior management and the board (PA 1312-1, para. 3).

-- 

Mona

Governance

Governance, Risk & Control

Governance

Governance is the combination of processes and structures implemented by the board to inform, direct, manage, and monitor the activities of the organization toward the achievement of its objectives.

IIA Guidance on Governance

2110 - Governance
The internal audit activity must assess and make appropriate recommendations for improving the governance process in its accomplishment of the following objectives:

·        Promoting appropriate ethics and values within the organization

·        Ensuring effective organizational performance management and accountability

·        Communicating risk and control information to appropriate areas of the organization

·        Coordinating the activities of and communicating information among the board, external and internal auditors, and management

2110.A1 - The internal audit activity must evaluate the design, implementation, and effectiveness of the organization's ethics-related objectives, programs, and activities.

2110.A2 - The internal audit activity must assess whether the information technology governance of the organization supports the organization's strategies and objectives.

-- 

 

 

Mona

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Internal Audit Girl: What is money laundring

Internal Audit Girl: What is money laundring: what is the meaning of Money Laundring Money laundering  is the process whereby the proceeds of crime are transformed into ostensibly ...

What is money laundring

what is the meaning of Money Laundring

Money laundering is the process whereby the proceeds of crime are transformed into ostensibly legitimate money or other assets.^[1] However in a number of legal and regulatory system the term money laundering has become conflated with other forms of financial crime, and sometimes used more generally to include misuse of the financial system (involving things such as securities, digital currencies such as bitcoin, credit cards, and traditional currency), including terrorism financing, tax evasion and evading ofinternational sanctions. Most anti-money laundering laws openly conflate money laundering (which is concerned with source of funds) with terrorism financing (which is concerned with destination of funds) when regulating the financial system.^[2]

Money obtained from certain crimes, such as extortion, insider trading, drug trafficking, illegal gambling and tax evasion is "dirty". It needs to be cleaned to appear to have derived from non-criminal activities so that banks and other financial institutions will deal with it without suspicion. Money can be laundered by many methods, which vary in complexity and sophistication.

Different countries may or may not treat tax evasion or payments in breach of international sanctions as money laundering. Some jurisdictions differentiate these for definition purposes, and others do not. Some jurisdictions define money laundering as obfuscating sources of money, either intentionally or by merely using financial systems or services that do not identify or track sources or destinations.

Other jurisdictions define money laundering to include money from activity that would have been a crime in that jurisdiction, even if it were legal where the actual conduct occurred. This broad brush of applying the term "money laundering" to merely incidental, extraterritorial, or simply privacy-seeking behaviors has led some to label it "financialthoughtcrime".^[3]

Many regulatory and governmental authorities issue estimates each year for the amount of money laundered, either worldwide or within their national economy. In 1996, the International Monetary Fund estimated that two to five percent of the worldwide global economy involved laundered money. The Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF), an intergovernmental body set up to combat money laundering, stated, "Overall, it is absolutely impossible to produce a reliable estimate of the amount of money laundered and therefore the FATF does not publish any figures in this regard."^[4] Academic commentators have likewise been unable to estimate the volume of money with any degree of assurance.^[5] Various estimates of the scale of global money laundering are sometimes repeated often enough to make some people regard them as factual—but no researcher has overcome the inherent difficulty of measuring an actively concealed practice.

Regardless of the difficulty in measurement, the amount of money laundered each year is in the billions (US dollars) and poses a significant policy concern for governments.^[5] As a result, governments and international bodies have undertaken efforts to deter, prevent, and apprehend money launderers. Financial institutions have likewise undertaken efforts to prevent and detect transactions involving dirty money, both as a result of government requirements and to avoid the reputational risk involved. Issues relating to money laundering have existed as long as there have been large scale criminal enterprises. Modern anti-money laundering laws have developed along with the modern War on Drugs.^[6] In more recent times anti-money laundering legislation is seen as adjunct to the financial crime of terrorist financing in that both crimes usually involve the transmission of funds through the financial system (although money laundering relates to where the money has come from, and terrorist financing relating to where the money is going to).

Reverse money laundering is a process that disguises a legitimate source of funds that are to be used for illegal purposes.^[7] In an affidavit filed March 24, 2014 in United States District Court, Northern California, San Francisco Division, FBI special agent Emmanuel V. Pascau alleged that several people associated with the Chee Kung Tong organization, and California State Senator Leland Yee, engaged in reverse money laundering activities.

-- 

Mona

Theft,Burglary,Robbery

What is the difference between burglary, robbery, and theft?

Here is the shortest answer to that question. First, burglary is the intent to break into a building without consent with the intent of committing a crime inside (including theft). Burglary is a specific intent crime, requiring that the burglar knowingly intend to commit a crime while inside. A person does not have to forcibly enter a building to commit burglary; going in through an unlocked window or door can still fulfill the “breaking” element of burglary.

Theft simply involves taking something from someone else with the intent to permanently deprive them of it. Embezzlement is a form of theft in which an employee diverts money intended for his employer or other employees for his or her own use. Likewise, fraud is also a form of theft, involving using trickery to permanently deprive someone of his or her property.

Finally, robbery is another specific intent crime, requiring both theft and a form of violence or threat of violence used to deprive someone of their property. The most common example of a robbery is a convenience store holdup, in which a robber threatens to shoot a cashier unless the cashier hands over the loot.

In all three cases — theft, burglary, and robbery — the government must prove that the defendant intended to permanently deprive someone of his or her property; generally, this element can be proven through the jury’s use of common sense or other circumstantial evidence suggesting the defendant meant to take the property forever. For instance, if a person steals someone else’s car and then claims it wasn’t a theft because he meant to return the car when he was done, the government can admit evidence that the defendant removed the VIN number to suggest he planned to permanently deprive the owner of his vehicle.