Money Facts Archive Get the real facts that will shape your future by having them delivered to your Inbox!

Lectlaw.com defines improper influence as: "Any influence that induces or tends to induce a Government employee or officer to give consideration or to act regarding a Government action on any basis other than the merits of the matter."

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 regarding Improper Influence on Conduct of Audits in accordance with Section 303(a)specifically prohibits any director or officer of an issuer to directly or indirectly:

1. Make or cause to be made a materially false or misleading statement to an accountant in connection with; or

2. Omit to state, or cause another person to omit to state, any material fact necessary in order to make statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading to an accountant in connection with: (a) any audit or examination of the financial statements of the issuer required to be made pursuant to this subpart; or (b) the preparation or filing of any document or report required to be filed with the Commission pursuant to this subpart or otherwise.

Also noted in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 were types of conduct that might constitute improper influence:

1. Offering or paying bribes or other financial incentives, including offering future employment or contracts for non-audit services,

2. Providing an auditor with inaccurate or misleading legal analysis,

3. Threatening to cancel or canceling existing non-audit or audit engagements if the auditor objects to the issuer's accounting,

4. Seeking to have a partner removed from the audit engagement because the partner objects to the issuer's accounting,

5. Blackmailing, and

6. Making physical threats.

The fact that the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) maintains exclusive authority for the civil enforcement of these rules leads one to wonder what they were doing when, in the prelude to the sub-prime mortgage crisis, the so-called "asset-backed pass-through certificates" were relentlessly peddled up and down wall street to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

Do you think the SEC just didn't know what was going on or do you think the SEC might have been under some sort of "improper influence?"

Worded another way, "We're they stupid or crooked?"

- Ed Smith