This week's discussion is based on the documentary, All the Queen's Horses. The documentary is available on demand at the following sites:Amazon Prime https://www.amazon.com/All-Queens-Horses-Gene-Biggerstaff/dp/B07BPR2Y2C/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1523379365&sr=1-1&keywords=all+the+queen%27s+horses (Links to an external site.)YouTube Movies All the Queen's Horses (Links to an external site.). Please watch the video and also review the related resources listed below.All the Queen’s HorsesOn February 14, 2013, Rita Crundwell, former comptroller for the city of Dixon, IL was sentenced to 19½ years in prison for stealing more than $53 million from Dixon. Crundwell's crime went on record as the largest municipal fraud in U.S. history. Just as shocking as the amount stolen from this small Illinois town, was the fact that Crundwell engaged in her scheme to pillage Dixon for 20 years before being discovered. Crundwell's fraud shines an unflattering spotlight on the accounting profession and the role of the audit. The relevance of the audit has been in question since the uncovering of massive corporate frauds dating back to Worldcom and Enron. Subsequent to Crundwell's conviction, the city of Dixon sued its auditors, accountants and bank, settling their claim against them for $40 million.After viewing the video and reviewing the related resources, please submit a 3-4 paragraph initial post, addressing the following:Describe the fraud scheme committed by Rita Crundwell, including how she concealed the fraud.How did Rita Crundwell steal over $37,000 each day from a town with an annual budget of around $6 million? Discuss the application of the fraud triangle and other fraud theories we have covered as they apply to this case study.How could this fraud have been prevented? In your discussion, be sure to explain the controls that were missing at City Hall.How could such embezzlement go undetected in annual audits by two independent accounting firms and in annual audit reviews by state regulators? How was this fraud continued for so many years? What red flags did the auditors miss? How did residents not become suspicious of Crundwell’s extravagant wealth and frivolous spending? How was the fraud finally detected? Explain the legal side of the case.As with other discussions, you will not see other students' posts until after your initial post. Please have your initial post submitted by Wednesday to ensure full credit. After your initial post, please continue the discussion with three (3) substantive replies to your classmates' initial posts.Related resources:How People Rationalize Fraud https://ed.ted.com/lessons/how-people-rationalize-fraud-kelly-richmond-pope (Links to an external site.)$54 Million Fraud https://www.aicpastore.com/Content/media/PRODUCER_CONTENT/Newsletters/Articles_2013/ForensicValuation/54-million-dollar-fraud.jsp (Links to an external site.)How Ronald Reagan’s Hometown Was Robbed Blind https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-ronald-reagans-hometown-was-robbed-blind (Links to an external site.)Rita Crundwell And The Dixon Embezzlement http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/December-2012/Rita-Crundwell-and-the-DixonEmbezzlement/ (Links to an external site.)

The Case of the Disappointed BridesSally and Samantha became engaged and decided to have their favorite tailor, George, design and make their wedding gowns. They set a date for the ceremony 8 months in the future. George had been making dresses and suits for them over many years and he knew their tastes and their measurements. He has a thriving business in a busy retail area. At the appointment to discuss their gowns, George informed the engaged couple that he was opposed to same sex marriage and would not make their wedding gowns.The TrialSally and Samantha sued George. They brought in evidence showing that George had always made their clothes, knew they were a couple and had never expressed his concerns about their relationship. They have been unable to timely find another designer/tailor to complete their gowns.The Arguments at TrialSally and Samantha’s attorney argues that George has no right to discriminate against them because of their sexual orientation, which is a protected class. In fact, the state in which they reside allows for same sex marriage, thus no law was being broken. George had taken care of their specialty clothing needs for years and his abrupt refusal, caused them emotional distress. George’s attorney argues that George is invoking his right to freedom of religion. If George made the gowns for the couple, that would constitute an endorsement of their homosexuality and that was something his religion did not allow.Questions to DiscussIf you were on the jury in this case, who would you decide for and why?If, instead of a homosexual couple, the request had been to make a Ku Klux Klan hood and robe, would your answer be the same? If not, why not? If yes, then why?