Among the ten generally accepted auditing standards is the standard that requires an auditor to have independence in mental attitude. As with so many rules and guidelines set forth by the government and numerous other organizations, the interpretations of many of these rules can be vastly subjective. During the case against Health Management’s founder Clifford Hotte, his co conspirators and the auditors at BDO Seidman the defendant’s attorney Michael Young brought forth the idea that according to the generally accepted auditing standards that requires an independence of mental attitude it never formally states that a friendship between an auditor and the client is be completely prohibited. The dilemma with deciphering the interpretation of the standard is determining where the line should be drawn between these relationships and the auditor’s ability to maintain these relationships and the independence considered necessary to give an unbiased opinion when it comes time to write a report that is unprejudiced and reliable to the public and investors at large.
Let us begin with Health Management’s CEO Clifford Hotte and CFO Drew Bergman’s 1995 inventory fraud scandal by which author Michael C. Knapp’s assertion could be considered as one of the least ingenious corporate fraud scams to date. The objective was to increase inventory as well as make minor adjustments to a small number of other accounts in order to reach the companies target earnings as reported by analysts previously in the year. Health Management did have what Drew Berman must have thought as an advantage to successfully get away with the devised scheme. The advantage was that Drew Bergman had previously worked with BDO Seidman, the accounting firm that was set to perform the audit on Health Management’s financial statements, before becoming Health Managements CFO. He was already aware of how BDO Seidman