Case Study
CASE 4: ACCOUNTING FRAUD AT WORLDCOM
Betty Vinson: victim or villain? Should criminal fraud charges have been brought to her? How should employees react when ordered by their employer to do something they do not believe in or feel uncomfortable doing?
In discussing whether Vinson should been charged with criminal fraud, it can be analyzed from ethical perspective which can truly judge whether she was morally responsible for the wrong or not. In order to determine whether Vinson was morally responsible for the fraud, these three criteria should be fulfilled first: causality, knowledge and freedom. The causality criteria can be referred as whether that individual caused or helped cause the wrong, or failed to prevent it when she could and should have. The knowledge criteria then requires the individual to did so knowing what she is doing while freedom criteria requires the individual did so own her free will before being morally responsible for causing the wrong. Examining the cause of the fraudulent activities, Vinson initially been pressured by Yates, Myers and Sullivan to aid in painting the financial result of the company only one time and assured by Sullivan that he would take full responsibility for the action. Being a senior manager worked under them and believing in Sullivan’s words, Vinson did as told accordingly. However, she decided against quitting when been asked to continually carry out the wrong as she justified herself as the main supporter of her family. Moreover, being an accountant for a long time, Vinson supposed to know the methods used to boast the company’s revenue were illegal but she still continued the acts at her own free will. This matter hence proved that she was morally responsible for the fraud as she did the wrong knowingly it as a wrong at her own free will even though she did not contribute to the initial cause of the fraud. On the other hand, moral responsibility can be mitigated by minimal contribution, uncertainty and
Betty Vinson: victim or villain? Should criminal fraud charges have been brought to her? How should employees react when ordered by their employer to do something they do not believe in or feel uncomfortable doing?
In discussing whether Vinson should been charged with criminal fraud, it can be analyzed from ethical perspective which can truly judge whether she was morally responsible for the wrong or not. In order to determine whether Vinson was morally responsible for the fraud, these three criteria should be fulfilled first: causality, knowledge and freedom. The causality criteria can be referred as whether that individual caused or helped cause the wrong, or failed to prevent it when she could and should have. The knowledge criteria then requires the individual to did so knowing what she is doing while freedom criteria requires the individual did so own her free will before being morally responsible for causing the wrong. Examining the cause of the fraudulent activities, Vinson initially been pressured by Yates, Myers and Sullivan to aid in painting the financial result of the company only one time and assured by Sullivan that he would take full responsibility for the action. Being a senior manager worked under them and believing in Sullivan’s words, Vinson did as told accordingly. However, she decided against quitting when been asked to continually carry out the wrong as she justified herself as the main supporter of her family. Moreover, being an accountant for a long time, Vinson supposed to know the methods used to boast the company’s revenue were illegal but she still continued the acts at her own free will. This matter hence proved that she was morally responsible for the fraud as she did the wrong knowingly it as a wrong at her own free will even though she did not contribute to the initial cause of the fraud. On the other hand, moral responsibility can be mitigated by minimal contribution, uncertainty and