Daisey Company_Comprehensive Bank Reconciliation with Theft and Internal

Daisey Company_Comprehensive Bank Reconciliation with Theft and Internal Control Deficiencies

Subject: Business / Accounting
Question
Preparing Comprehensive Bank Reconciliation with Theft and Internal Control Deficiencies
Daisey Company is a very profitable small business. It has not, however given much consideration to internal control. For example, in an attempt to keep clerical and office expenses to a minimum, the company has combined the jobs of cashier and book-keeper. As a result, Bret Turrin handles all cash receipts, keeps the accounting records, and prepares the monthly bank reconciliations.

The balance per the bank statement on October 31, 2017, was $18,380. Outstanding checks were No. 62 for $140.75, No. 183 for $180, No. 284 for $253.25, No. 862 for $190.71, No. 863 for $226.80, and No. 864 for $165.28. Included with the statement was a credit memorandum of $185 indicating the collection of a note receivable for Daisey Company by the bank on October 25.

This memorandum has not been recorded by Daisey.

The company’s ledger showed one Cash account with a balance of $21,877.72. The balance included undepositied cash on hand. Because of the lack of internal controls, Bret took for personal use all of the undeposited receipts in excess of $3,795.51. He then prepared the following bank reconciliation in an effort to conceal his theft of cash:

Cash balance per books, October 31 $21,877.72
Add: Outstanding checks
No. 862 $190.71
No. 863 226.80
No. 864 165.28 482.79
22,360.51
Less: Undeposited receipts 3,795.51
Unadjusted balance per bank, October 31 18,565.00
Less: Bank credit memorandum 185.00
Cash balance per bank statement, October 31 $18,380.00
Prepare a 200-word bank reconciliation report (hint: deduct the amount of the theft from the adjusted balance per books) including the following:

Indicate the three ways that Bret attempted to conceal the theft and the dollar amount involved in each method.
What principles of internal control were violated in this case?