Spelling, grammar, referencing and overall presentation (2 marks) None or minimal spelling and grammar errors. None or minimal referencing errors. A well-presented report. (2/2) Mostly free from spelling and grammar errors. Mostly free from referencing errors. A reasonably well- presented report.(1.75/2) A moderate level of spelling and/or grammar errors. A moderate level of referencing errors. These errors did not significantly impede the communication. A moderately well- presented report. (1.5/2) A moderate level of spelling and/or grammar errors making the report difficult to read. A moderate level of referencing errors. A poorly presented report with sections missing. (1/2) Significant errors which made assignment difficult to interpret. References missing. Little evidence of a report format being used. (0 to 0.5/2) Research quality and range of sources (3 marks) More than 3 sources cited that were highly relevant to the topic and well linked to the task. (3/3) Three (3) sources cited that were highly relevant to the topic and well linked to the task. (2.5/3)

Consideration of qualitative factors (2 marks) Student demonstrated insightful consideration of fraud factors with regards to at least 1 selection. (2/2) Student demonstrated logical consideration of fraud factors with regards to at least 1 selection. (1.75/2) Student demonstrated reasonable consideration of fraud factors with regards to at least 1 selection. (1.5/2) Student demonstrated some consideration of fraud factors. (1/2) Insufficient consideration of fraud factors was evident. (0 to 0.5/2) Assertions and procedures (4.5 marks) Assertions identified are well justified and realistic. Audit procedures are realistic and would provide strong evidence for the assertions. (4 to 4.5/4.5) Assertions identified are valid and well justified. Audit procedures would provide evidence for the assertions. (3.5/4.5) Most assertions identified are valid and justified. Most of the identified audit procedures would provide evidence for the assertions. (3/4.5) Many assertions identified are valid and justified. Many of the identified audit procedures would provide evidence for the assertions. (2 to 2.5/4.5)

Materiality assessment (4.5 marks) Materiality assessments were realistic and logical. (4 to 4.5/4.5) Materiality assessments were logical. Minor improvements could have been made to materiality assessment. (3.5/4.5) Materiality assessments were mostly logical. Some errors were noted in materiality assessment. (3/4.5) Materiality assessments were somewhat logical. Significant errors were noted in materiality assessment. (2 to 2.5/4.5) Materiality assessments were missing or significantly flawed. (0 to 1.5/4.5) Selection and justification of accounts (4.5 marks) Student identified 6 valid accounts. All selections were well justified and realistic. (4 to 4.5/4.5) Student identified 5 valid accounts. All selections were well justified. (3.5/4.5) Student identified 4 valid accounts. Most selections were well justified. (3/4.5) Student identified 3 valid accounts. Some justification was evident. (2 to 2.5/4.5) Student did not successfully identify at least 3 valid accounts. Justification was inadequate. (0 to 1.5/4.5)

HD D Cr P F Analytical review in specified format (4.5 marks) Analytical review was well- considered and effective. (4 to 4.5/4.5) Analytical review was effective. Minor improvements could have been made to analytical review. (3.5/4.5) Analytical review was mostly effective. Some errors were noted in analytical review. (3/4.5) Analytical review was somewhat effective. Significant errors were noted in analytical review. (2 to 2.5/4.5) Analytical review was missing or significantly flawed. (0 to 1.5/4.5)

The stated total word count is 1,600 words. However assignments between 1,400 and 1,800 words in length will be considered acceptable. The criteria rubric with which your assignment will be marked This assignment is worth 25% of your overall grade. It will be marked out of 25.

Therefore, it is critical that you provide complete referencing for any sources of information you use in preparing your assignment. This includes both in-text references and a list of references at the end of your assignment. Referencing should be in accordance with USC’s guidelines for Harvard referencing. The assignment should only be submitted electronically via Safe Assign on the course Blackboard site. If you wish to apply for an extension to your submission date, please email Donald Jamieson to explain the circumstances and attach any necessary supporting documentation. Extensions will only be considered in very limited circumstances as per USC policy. Late penalties will be applied for assignments submitted after 5pm on the due date without an approved extension. More details on late penalties are provided in the course outline.

ACC621 Assignment – Semester 3 Due Date: Monday 5 at 5pm Weighting: 25% In this document you will find: • General information about the assignment, • Details of your task, • A suggested template for your answer, and • The criteria rubric with which your assignment will be marked. General information about the assignment The assignment must be your own individual work; i.e. it is not a group assignment. If it is believed that a student has copied material from another student or any other source without appropriate referencing, the necessary action will be taken under the University’s Student Academic Misconduct Policy