| Course | ACCT 650 Corporate Governance and Fraudulent Financial Reporting (ACCT650) |
|---|---|
| Module/Week | 4 |
| Assignment | Discussion Board Forum 3 Reply |
| Paper type | Discussion reply |
| Length | about 317 words (thread and replies). Course guide: a single reply of 275 to 400 words to one classmate's Forum 3 thread, citing at least one source, in current APA format |
| Format | APA 7 citations and reference list |
| Points | 25 |
| School | Liberty University Online |
| Program | MS in Accounting |
| Where it sits | Module/Week 4 in Liberty's published ACCT 650 course guide; current sections can differ |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for ACCT 650 Week 4
Discussion Board Forum 3 Reply: Responding to a Classmate on Whistleblower Programs
ACCT 650 Corporate Governance and Fraudulent Financial Reporting, Discussion Board Forum 3 Reply
Thread by [Student Name]
The classmate's thread is a composite; the study and statute cited are real.
Tasha, you argued that internal hotlines are the main way companies uncover fraud, and I agree that employees are the most important source of detection. I would add evidence that broadens your point beyond hotlines. Dyck et al. (2010) traced who first revealed a large set of corporate frauds at major U.S. companies and found that employees, the media and industry regulators detected more of them than auditors or the SEC did. In other words, the people closest to the business and those outside the traditional control system were the most effective detectors. The watchers we pay to find fraud were not the ones who found most of it.
Their study also found that where employees could expect a monetary reward, as in health care fraud cases brought under the federal False Claims Act, employees played a larger role in detection. That finding supports the design of the SEC whistleblower program created by the Dodd-Frank Act. A person who voluntarily provides original information leading to a successful SEC enforcement action with sanctions over $1 million may receive an award of 10 to 30 percent of the money collected, and the law protects whistleblowers against retaliation (Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 2010). The program has paid large awards since then, which suggests the incentive is doing what the study predicted: drawing forward people who would otherwise stay silent.
This raises a question about your recommendation. You suggested companies rely mainly on internal hotlines. If outside rewards draw more employees forward, could they also lead employees to bypass the internal hotline and go straight to the SEC, depriving the company of a chance to fix the problem? Or does the possibility of an outside report push companies to take internal reports more seriously? I would be interested in your view, especially if your own workplace has a hotline and you know how often it is used.
References
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, ยง 922, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).
Dyck, A., Morse, A., & Zingales, L. (2010). Who blows the whistle on corporate fraud? The Journal of Finance, 65(6), 2213-2253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2010.01614.x
What the ACCT 650 Week 4 instructions ask
Module/Week 4 of ACCT 650 assigns no new reading; students review earlier chapters, take Exam 1 and post the reply that finishes Forum 3. That reply goes to at least one classmate's thread from Module/Week 3 and must fall between 275 and 400 words with at least one source, in current APA format. The syllabus asks for a meaningful reply, which in practice means engaging the classmate's specific argument and adding evidence or reasoning the thread did not have. Because the word range is narrow, the reply has room for one clear contribution, so choosing which point to extend matters more than covering everything the classmate said.
How this ACCT 650 Week 4 example is built
The sample reply has four short moves. It names the classmate's claim and agrees with its core, so the response is fair. It then adds evidence the thread lacked, a study that traced who detected a large set of corporate frauds and found that employees, journalists and industry regulators uncovered more cases than auditors or the SEC. A third move connects the study's finding about monetary rewards to the SEC whistleblower program created by the Dodd-Frank Act, explaining how its awards work. Its last move is a question asking the classmate whether outside rewards help or hurt internal hotlines, keeping the exchange going within the 400-word limit.
ACCT 650 Week 4 grading rubric: where the points go
Replies in ACCT 650 are graded on whether they engage the classmate's argument meaningfully, add substance supported by at least one source, stay within 275 to 400 words and follow current APA format. Instructors favor replies that bring a new study, rule or example to the classmate's thread over replies that restate it. Accuracy about what a source found is part of the grade, especially for empirical claims about who detects fraud. A respectful tone and a genuine question or challenge show the collaborative learning the syllabus describes. Because the reply is only 25 points, its value is in quality rather than length, and a focused reply usually scores better than a crowded one.
ACCT 650 Week 4 help: mistakes that cost points
Read the classmate's thread and pick the one claim you can add the most to. Agree or disagree with it in your opening sentence, then bring in a source the classmate did not use, such as a study, a statute or a case. Explain what the source shows and why it matters to the classmate's point. Stay between 275 and 400 words, which rules out summarizing the whole thread. Close on a question your classmate will want to answer. Cite your source in APA style in the text and in a reference list. Exam 1 is due the same module/week, so draft the reply early and use the reading review to support it.
Related ACCT 650 sample papers
Other ACCT 650 weeks
- ACCT 650 Week 1: Forum 1 Thread
- ACCT 650 Week 2: Forum 2 Thread
- ACCT 650 Week 3: Learning Project Proposal
- ACCT 650 Week 5: Forum 4 Thread
- ACCT 650 Week 6: Forum 5 Thread
- ACCT 650 Week 7: Individual Learning Project
More MS in Accounting sample papers
- ACCT 616 Week 4: Discussion Board Forum 3
- ACCT 618 Week 1: Reflection Essay
- ACCT 622 Week 4: Forum 2 Critique
- ACCT 635 Week 4: Project Outline and Bibliography
ACCT 650 Week 4 questions, answered
What is the ACCT 650 Forum 3 Reply?
The 25-point reply that completes Forum 3 in Module/Week 4, answering at least one classmate's thread in 275 to 400 words with at least one source in APA style.
Where can I find a free ACCT 650 Week 4 sample paper?
The ACCT 650 Week 4 sample here is a full forum reply on whistleblowing, adding research on who detects corporate fraud and how the SEC whistleblower program works.
Who detects most corporate fraud?
A study of large U.S. corporate fraud cases found that employees, the media and industry regulators detected more frauds than auditors or the SEC, which ranked lower than many expect.
How does the SEC whistleblower program work?
Under the Dodd-Frank Act, a whistleblower whose original information leads to SEC sanctions above $1 million may receive an award of 10 to 30 percent of the money collected.
What else is due in ACCT 650 Module/Week 4?
Exam 1, an open-book test of 25 true-false and multiple-choice questions, is due the same week, and no new chapters are assigned so students can review.
Use it as a model, or ask for your own
This paper is an original model written by our desk for study. It is not a submitted student paper and not an official Liberty University document. Read it for structure and reasoning, then write your own to the instructions in your Canvas course. If you want a version built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Ask for a custom ACCT 650 Week 4 sample · All ACCT 650 weeks · All courses