Write My Liberty ACCT 660 Assignments

Each forum has a thread worth 90 points and replies worth 35. Threads need 750-plus words and three scholarly references; each of two replies needs 250 words and two references.

Threads are due in weeks one, three, five and seven, and replies in the week after each thread.

The reading outlines, due in weeks three and eight, cover each chapter read so far. They may use sentences, phrases and diagrams, must be detailed and substantive, run at least one double-spaced page per chapter and are worth 75 points each.

The topic submission in week two names the company and carries no points.

Week four's Part 1 tells the company's and the fraud's story in depth, including discovery and the people involved. Two thousand words and five resources, news and government sites allowed, for 175 points.

Week seven's Part 2 sets out how you would have caught or investigated the fraud and how a biblical worldview shapes that. Also 2,000 words and five resources, scholarly, textbook or Scripture, for 175 points.

There are no exams, so these items are the whole grade apart from the checklist. Week one starts on Monday, and every later week on Saturday.

Good cases involve fake employees in payroll, altered ERP entries, insider data theft or sham vendors in payables.

Outline 1 covers the chapters read in weeks one to three, and Outline 2 the rest of the book.

Forum threads use Nigrini's tests as their backbone. A data-preparation thread shows why completeness and accuracy checks come first.

A digit-test thread shows how second-order and last-two-digit tests catch fabrications the first-digit test misses. A thread on relative size explains the kind of fraud that test catches.

Outlines are written as a field manual. Entries follow one pattern: the test's name and purpose, the fields it uses, the steps to run it, and the pattern that should worry an examiner.

Part 1 keeps the systems in the foreground, naming the application involved, the rights the perpetrator held and the safeguard that failed.

Part 2 matches each test to a fact from Part 1. For a fake-vendor scheme, that could mean comparing supplier addresses with staff addresses, looking for repeated invoice amounts and spotting invoices far larger than a vendor's usual size.

Part 2's biblical worldview section ties the investigator's duties to truthfulness and justice.

Each thread is organized around a claim, the evidence from Nigrini and the scholarly references, and a practical example. Replies take up a classmate's point and add their own references.

Outline entries include a short worked example where a test is hard to picture. Diagrams are used where they make a test clearer.

Part 1 explains how the fraud was discovered and who was involved, drawing on news reports, SEC filings and Justice Department releases. It closes by identifying the facts Part 2 will test.

Part 2 closes with what an organization should run routinely, linking to the course's discussion of continuous monitoring.

Threads keep a practical example in view, such as a payables file or payroll register, so the test discussed is easy to picture.

Outlines record each test's purpose, the data it needs, how to run it and the result that should raise concern.

Part 2 matches each proposed test to a fact from Part 1, so the detection plan is specific to the case.

Tests match the case.

Sources are cited fully.

The writers are forensic data analysts, CPAs and CFEs who use analytics in investigations.

A second analyst reviews each item before release.

Many have run Benford's law, duplicate tests and record matching on real investigations. They know which test fits which scheme.

Several have written fraud reports for boards and prosecutors, so their writing is precise. Others have taught analytics to audit staff.

One analyst handles your whole order, so the outlines, forums and project share their terms. Your files reach them without your name.

They have explained analytic results to non-specialists, so their writing stays readable.

Threads lose points under 750 words or with fewer than three scholarly references. Replies lose points under 250 words or with fewer than two references.

Outlines lose points when a chapter has less than a page or only lists headings.

Project parts lose points under 2,000 words or with fewer than five resources.

Project parts also lose points when the technology is in the background instead of the center, or when Part 2's tests do not connect to Part 1's facts.

Part 2 loses points when the biblical worldview section is missing or general. It should connect to the investigator's duties in this case.

Any item loses points when references are not scholarly where the rubric requires it, or when citations stray from current APA.

Outlines also lose points when tests are named without the data they need or the result that should raise concern.

A reply that only restates what the classmate said earns little of its 35 points.

Outlines lose points when chapters are covered in less than a page.

A thread takes two to three days. Replies take a day once classmates post.

An outline takes three to four days. Each project part takes six to eight days.

The project parts are the largest lines, and ordering both together lowers each. Forum lines include both replies.

Urgent work costs more, especially the project. A draft you have begun can be finished for less.

Sending the company's name early lets the research start before week three. That keeps Part 1 on schedule.

Outlines are priced by the chapters they cover, and they cost less when ordered with the forums.

Prompts that call for several worked examples take an extra day.