College Research Papers

If you order your custom term paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on Ethics Case 26.10. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality Ethics Case 26.10 paper right on time.

Our staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in Ethics Case 26.10, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your Ethics Case 26.10 paper at affordable!

This case concerns a company by the name of Actors Equity, an employee and Bank of New York. In 18 Actors Equity were in search of a new comptroller. After reviewing applications, they chose Nicholas Scotti as their new comptroller. In his application, he stated that he had held various financial positions with reputable companies. Actors Equity chose to offer Mr. Scotti the position without contacting previous employees and conducting a background check.

Actors Equity maintained a checking account at the Bank of New York. Within the first six months Scotti forged the signature of the appropriate employees on four checks totaling $100K. All checks were made payable to N. Piscotti. The bank paid the checks. Once Scotti resigned Actors Equity conducted some research and they found that Scotti's real name was actually N. Piscotti. Actors Equity sued the drawee bank to recover the $100K.

In this case Scotti did not act ethically. First, he lied about his real name. Second, he inflated his resume to seem as if he had an extensive job history with reputable companies. Third, he lied about having a criminal history in order to be considered for the new position. Fourth, he forged the signatures of company employees to enable him to cash the checks under his real name. Fifth, he cashed the checks knowing that the money was not rightfully his.

There are many items to consider when deciding if Actors Equity should have sued Bank of New York to recover the forged checks. The bank does have a duty of care when conducting business for a customer. As far as the bank was concerned each of the cashed checks were valid. Each of them contained proper authorizing signatures from Actors Equity. When the checks were presented, the presenter had proper identification to satisfy the validity of the check. The forged signatures were of professional quality. As far as the bank is concerned they did nothing out of the ordinary and certainly did not conduct themselves negligently.

Actors Equity had a great deal of negligence on their part. If this company had conducted a contact to Scotti's previous employees, they would have discovered that he was not employed with them and certainly not as a comptroller. If a background check would have been conducted then they would have found out the person had an extensive criminal history. With a simple check on this person they would have discovered the most important thing, that this person's name was not Nicholas Scotti, but it actually was Nicholas Piscotti. Another area that they failed to consider is their internal controls in regards to checks. If Actors Equity would have had a better system to ensure checks validity before they are released, the check might have been caught before they were drawn.

When considering forgery and negotiation of invalid checks the onus falls on the party that had the greater opportunity to prevent the fraud. In this case it was Actors Equity. They failed on several occasions to prevent this and failed to do so. As far as the law is concerned, they have no recourse to go back to Bank of New York and recover the amount of the forged checks.

In this case The Bank of New York wins. They conducted themselves correctly in the cashing of the checks. Perhaps in the future Actors Equity will investigate their prospective employees in a more detailed manner. In this case Actors Equity will have to take this as a lesson learned and an area for improvement.

Please note that this sample paper on Ethics Case 26.10 is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on Ethics Case 26.10, we are here to assist you. Your cheap custom college paper on Ethics Case 26.10 will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.

Order your authentic assignment from and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!