| Course | AC465 Fraud and Forensic Accounting |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Fraud triangle case analysis |
| Length | About 570 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Accounting |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for AC465 Unit 3
$612,000 Moved Below the Line: A Unit 3 Fraud Triangle Analysis Built From Documents, Not Assumptions
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
AC465: Fraud and Forensic Accounting
Unit 3 Fraud Triangle Case Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Lakeshore Living Communities, its people and every figure are composite; the books and article cited are real.
Quantification
Portfolio net operating income as reported: $22,550,000. Without the $612,000 of costs capitalized, it would have been $21,938,000. The regional vice president's bonus target was $22,400,000. Reported results cleared it by $150,000; restated results miss it by $462,000.
In the refinanced pool of eleven communities, $420,000 of the costs lifted net operating income to $7,620,000, which is 1.27 times $6,000,000 of debt service. Restated, net operating income is $7,200,000 and the ratio 1.20, below the loan covenant of 1.25. A breach would have allowed the lender to sweep the pool's cash and required notice to the owners.
The timing of the recoding fits both thresholds. Of the 81 work orders recoded, 58 were changed in November and December, after the third-quarter results showed the portfolio $300,000 short of the bonus target and the refinanced pool at 1.22 times debt service. Before July, the same regional vice president had recoded only four work orders in the whole year.
Pressure
The bonus plan, in the regional vice president's file, pays 15 percent of her $210,000 salary, $31,500, only if portfolio net operating income meets the target. An October email from the owners' asset manager asked her to "make sure the refi pool stays comfortably above 1.25 through year end." Both documents connect the threshold to her personally.
Opportunity
The property system's permission report shows that regional vice presidents can change the account coding on work orders above $25,000 without a second approval. Accounting reviews capital additions quarterly, but only in total, not invoice by invoice. Eighty-one work orders were recoded under her user ID between July and December.
Rationalization
A note she wrote on a December work order reads: "Roofs due next year anyway. This just pulls it forward." The note suggests she viewed the coding as a matter of timing rather than misstatement, a common form of justification in which the person tells themselves no one is harmed (Cressey, 1953).
Each leg rests on a document that exists independently of the conclusion, a bonus plan, an email, a permission report and her own note, so the analysis shows the conditions for fraud were present without claiming to know what she intended.
Classification
This is financial statement fraud on the concealed expenses branch: what was altered was the reported result, while no asset left the company. Recording repairs as improvements takes a cost out of this year's expenses and parks it among the assets, where it is depreciated over years instead of charged now (Albrecht et al., 2019).
What the Evidence Cannot Show
The documents show motive, means and a stated justification. They do not show intent to deceive, which only a fact finder can conclude. Some of the work may genuinely be improvement: a full roof replacement is capital; a patch is not. A building engineer must review the 81 work orders before the $612,000 is treated as entirely misclassified. Researchers have extended the triangle to include capability, the person's position and skill to carry out a scheme, and her authority to recode work orders fits that element as well (Dorminey et al., 2012).
References
Albrecht, W. S., Albrecht, C. O., Albrecht, C. C., & Zimbelman, M. F. (2019). Fraud examination (6th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Cressey, D. R. (1953). Other people's money: A study in the social psychology of embezzlement. Free Press.
Dorminey, J., Fleming, A. S., Kranacher, M.-J., & Riley, R. A. (2012). The evolution of fraud theory. Issues in Accounting Education, 27(2), 555-579. https://doi.org/10.2308/iace-50131
Reading the AC 465 Unit 3 instructions
The third AC465 unit asks you to analyze a case through the fraud triangle using evidence rather than assumption. Begin by quantifying the scheme's effect on whatever thresholds mattered, such as bonus targets or loan covenants, showing reported and restated figures. For pressure, find documents that connect the threshold to the person, not just a general incentive. For opportunity, find the specific control gap that allowed the scheme. For rationalization, look for the person's own words. Note timing that connects actions to pressure. Classify the scheme. Close by stating what the evidence cannot show, especially intent, and what further review is needed before the full amount is treated as misstated. Cite Cressey's original work, research on extensions of the triangle and a fraud text in APA 7.
Inside the AC465 Unit 3 example
The sample's quantification shows portfolio net operating income of $22,550,000 falling to $21,938,000, from $150,000 over the bonus target to $462,000 under, and the refinanced pool falling from 1.27 to 1.20 times debt service. A timing paragraph shows 58 of 81 recodings in November and December. Pressure rests on a bonus plan paying $31,500 and an October email; opportunity on a permission report allowing recoding without a second approval; rationalization on her note, citing Cressey. The highlighted sentence explains that each leg rests on an independent document without claiming intent. Classification as concealed expenses cites Albrecht and colleagues. The closing section names intent as beyond the evidence, calls for an engineer's review of the 81 work orders and cites Dorminey and colleagues on capability.
AC465 Unit 3 rubric: what earns full points
AC465 fraud triangle analyses are graded on the quality of evidence for each leg and on restraint in conclusions. Quantifying the effect on thresholds shows why pressure existed. Graders reward documents that tie pressure to the person, such as a bonus plan or an email, over general statements that everyone has incentives. Opportunity should be a specific, demonstrated control gap. Rationalization must come from the person's own words or actions, not from the writer's imagination. Classification should follow the scheme's effect. A section on what the evidence cannot show, especially intent, demonstrates professional judgment. Awareness of extensions to the triangle adds depth. Accurate figures and APA 7 citations to Cressey and later research complete this unit's Purdue Global grade.
AC465 Unit 3 help: mistakes that cost points
Many Unit 3 analyses fill each leg with speculation, such as assuming financial trouble at home. Others name pressure as the bonus plan without showing the person was near the threshold. Opportunity is described as weak controls in general. Rationalization is invented rather than evidenced. Restated figures are missing, so the scheme's significance is never shown. The analysis concludes that the person committed fraud, a judgment beyond the evidence. If your case is a news story, a court opinion or an assigned scenario, our writers can build each leg from the documents it contains.
Get an AC465 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Cases for this unit range from a paragraph to a published enforcement action; either works, provided the rubric comes with it. Where the material says nothing about pressure or rationalization, the Unit 3 analysis names the gap instead of filling it. Turnaround is 24-48h, and the first custom analysis carries no fee. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More AC465 papers and BS in Accounting samples
- AC465 Unit 1: Audit Versus Investigation Post
- AC465 Unit 2: Fraud Scheme Classification
- AC465 Unit 4: Red Flag Review
- AC465 Unit 5: Investigation Plan
- AC465 Unit 6: Interview Question Sequence
- AC465 Unit 7: Evidence Log
- AC465 Unit 8: Seminar Reflection
- AC465 Unit 9: Findings Report
- AC465 Unit 10: Expert Testimony Exercise
- AC450 Unit 3: Acquisition Date Worksheet
- AC444 Unit 3: Single View Build
- AC442 Unit 3: REA Entity Relationship Diagram
- AC112 Unit 3: Trial Balance Problem and Note
AC465 Unit 3 questions, answered
Is a bonus target really pressure, or just an incentive?
Both, and the analysis treats the difference as a matter of evidence. An incentive becomes pressure when missing it has consequences the person feels, and here the file holds a covenant certificate she signed and an email warning that a breach was not acceptable. Without those documents, the bonus plan alone would support only a weak claim, and the section would say so.
Why is this financial statement fraud rather than theft?
Because the scheme altered the statements rather than removing assets. Recording repairs as improvements moved 612,000 of expense onto the balance sheet, overstating income and clearing two thresholds. Any bonus that followed is a consequence, not the mechanism. On the ACFE classification this sits under financial statement fraud, concealed liabilities and expenses, and the analysis keeps that label consistent throughout.
Can the analysis use a case my instructor assigned?
Yes. Send the case with the prompt and the rubric. Each leg is built only from what that material contains, quoted or cited to its source, and a final section names each point the case leaves unsettled. A case that says nothing about rationalization gets a section explaining that absence rather than an invented motive.
Where can I find a free AC465 Unit 3 sample paper?
This page holds a complete AC465 Unit 3 fraud triangle case analysis of $612,000 of recoded repairs at a composite property manager, with quantification, documented legs, classification, limits and APA 7 references.
What did the recoding do to the loan covenant in AC465 Unit 3?
It lifted the refinanced pool's net operating income to $7,620,000, or 1.27 times $6,000,000 of debt service. Restated at $7,200,000, the ratio is 1.20, below the 1.25 covenant.