Answer:
Corruption is the single greatest obstacle to economic and social development around the world. But it does not just steal money from where it is needed the most; it leads to weak governance, which in turn fuels organized criminal groups and promotes crimes such as human trafficking, arms and migrant smuggling, counterfeiting and the trade in endangered species.
In the run up to the 13th United Nations Crime Congress being held in April, different crimes are being highlighted, showing their impact on development and how vital it is to tackle them to achieve sustainable development. In February 2015 the focus is on corruption, outlining the scale of the problem and telling its transnational story.
Hi! Charlie Brown served <span>buttered toast, jellybeans, pretzel sticks, and popcorn for Thanksgiving dinner, so it's answer B. Toast.</span>
Answer: Ultramares corporation v. Touche established Ultramares doctrine. Hochfelder v. Ernst & Ernst ruled that scienter is required before CPAs can be held liable.
Explanation:
All the options except the above are true. Ultramares corporation v. Touche did establish the Ultramares doctrine.
United States v. Natelli sentenced two CPAs to prison for a year, in addition to fines, for violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Bily v. Arthur Young did not uphold the restatement doctrine. The restatement doctrine restatement doctrine makes an auditor liable to people who rely on the quality of his work be they his clients or third parties. Two high courts ruled that auditors are not liable to third parties who use their work but only to the party that contracted their work.
However, Hochfelder v. Ernst & Ernst ruled that an allegation of scienter (an intention to deceive) is not required before CPAs can be held liable as long as the actions constitute actual deception.
While rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act states the presence of scienter as a requirement to commit an offense, the court ruled against the statute by eliminating the Scienter clause from criminal statute and ruled against Ernst & Ernst.
New ideas cannot be copied
