High Court Ruling Only Tweaks Sarbanes-Oxley Act

ARTICLE SYNOPSISThe High tourist court Ruling Only Tweaks Sarbanes-Oxley scrap article is about the Supreme Court ruling in Free endeavour Fund vs. PCAOB indicating that Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) get out remain fully operative as a law with the exception to remove members of the Public high society Accounting Oversight Board. Prior to the SOX Act, the removal of member was said to violate the appointments clause of the Constitution. In increment to discussing the ruling, the following will explain how the Sarbanes-Oxley act affects ethical decisions in todays business and the cruel penalties that it provides. ETHICAL DECISIONThe process of making decisions consists of ethical attribute that include single, transparency, and accountability. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act has the effect of ensuring investor confidence with the existence of regulatory provisions useful in enhancing ethical standards. In the case of Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB shows the extent to which the issue of separa tion of indicators is upheld. The main argument in the case was the excess power granted to the dining table as it was appointed by Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) other than the president. This means that the board had regulatory non-restricted power by the executive. According to the ruling, PCAOB has the power to continue overseeing public company audits with the intention of protect investors interest (Jaeger, 2010).This is a major development as it relates to ensuring that beseeming measures supports the scope of executives ensuring that worthy decisions are effective inprotecting the interests of investors. The courts ruling indicated that PCAOB board members will be removed from office staff by SEC at will other than for good cause (Jaeger, 2010). However, other programs of PCAOB remain unmoved(p) by the decision of the court.It is important to note that the enactment of the SOX Act is a major development that has ensured integrity in decision-making process es sential in protecting the integrity of investors. As a result of maintaining proper books of accounts and ensuring proper internal controls are in place, the SOX Act ensures ethical decisions are made enhancing the integrity and transparency. Ultimately, the trespass of the SOX Act is to protect the interest of investors through prevention of accounting frauds.CRIMINAL PENALTIESThe SOX Act provides for various illegal penalties downstairs certain sections. Section 802 of the SOX Act provides whitlow penalties for influencing the United States agency investigation, which is also known as proper administration. The criminal penalty punishes any person who knowingly falsifies information or document with the intention of obstructing a particular investigation. An individual underside be put in jail if found guilty of this criminal offense for a period not exceeding 20 years. Another criminal penalty nether the SOX Act is retaliation against whistleblowers (Jaeger, 2010).This relate s to any person who takes harmful action against another person with the intention to retaliate. A fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 10 years can be placed if a person is found guilty for this criminal offense. Section 906 of the SOX Act provides for criminal penalties for CEO or CFO financial statement certification. According to this section, any corporate officer who fails to disclose financial reports is liable for a jail term not exceeding 20 years.Reference Jaeger, J. (2010). High Court Ruling Only Tweaks Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Accessed