As security is such a major theme on the Act, many organizations are using the international ISO standards. The ISO 27001 Portal outlines these. A copy of the standards, and security policies, can be obtained via the ISO 17799 Toolkit.
Our server logs indicate some interesting mis-spellings: Sarbannes Oxley, Sorbane Oxley, Sarbanne Oxley, Sarbaines Oxley, Sarbanesoxley, Sorbanes Oxley, Sabanes Oxley, Sarbane Oxley, and Sarbanes Oaxley, to name but a few!
Sarbanes-Oxley Act Forum: Forums
The Sarbanes Oxley Act :: View topic - spilt transaction
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 4:08 pm Post subject: spilt transaction
i have statement within one procedure for signature authorizations, saying the following: it is totally forbidden to spilt a transaction to avoid the authoriz sign value limit to xx boxes .
i was reviewing two sample of to entries in GL relating to trip expenses and i notify that the second entrees is just a part of the first one. these entries was recorded in the GL in the same date. i've arguied with the account that it is looked as spilting transactions, he replied that the statement was relating to auth sign blabla
even it can be the case, is it considering in compliance stuff and financial ethic, correct to have 2 entries ( for rembursement) in the same date and in 2 time while the second is just additional expense to the first entree?
Joined: Jan 12, 2006 Posts: 849 Location: Roanoke, Virginia
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 10:49 am Post subject:
it is totally forbidden to spilt a transaction to avoid the authoriz sign value limit to xx boxes
Hi Selena -- While this is more of an internal control than something stipulated directly in SOX, it does appear that you have a legitimate finding that is in violation of established procedures.
If the split was done for business needs in appropriating costs to 2 different budget centers that might a better expection to your established rule. However, it would be more unacceptable to divide up expenses so that they don't violate autonomy limits or other controls.
I feel it's worth writing up and while it's probably an acceptable transaction overall, highlighting it might discourage further violations of this control.
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 5:28 pm Post subject: spilt transaction
sorry for delay
actually, this is as i've said, additional expense, arrived late as they argued to me, so they make it as this, while it is just additional expense of the whole transaction , occured in the same time and for the same purpose. my feeling is more lazy person or such of stuff. most of the finding that i've find was kind of this stuff, error while taping, put the wrong amount in the stamp while it is correct in the GL and the final total of invoice, kind of stuff
as you said, reminder of rule and also notification to the boss ( he is good to stop bad willing from people) to correct that.
just as remark, even it is not up than the value limit established, i do not see the adding value to spilt a transaction, don't you?
thanks for feedback
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Trademarks referenced on the SOX Act Forum are property of their respective owners. Comments are property of their respective posters. Sarbanes-Oxley Act Implementation Portal: Sarbanes Oxley compliance, information, software, & internal audit committee resources. Sarbox. Site source is copyright nuke (c)2003, and is Free Software under the GNU / GPL licence agreement. All Rights Are Reserved.