特色：
In 1969, three certified public accountants were convicted of conspiring toknowingly draw up and certify a false and misleading corporate financial statement. From a financial statement point of view, the issue in UnitedStates v. Simon:8 centered on a footnote that concerned the coUectibility of alarge account receivable. The receivable was of sufficient size that theviability of the underlying debtor (Valley) should have been investigated.The footnote concealed the fact that the alleged security for the receivable was actually the stock of the company whose statement was being ertified (Continental). In other words, an examination of the Continental balance sheet would not reveal that the underlying security for the Valley account receivable was the securities of Continental itself. As a practical matter, there was no security for the debt of the related corporation. It is importantto note that the accountants were partners in what was then a national firm of certified public accountants. The case is noteworthy as being a criminal conviction and not a civil judgment for fraud or negligence in the preparation of the accounting records. The jury decided that the accountants were culpable because they had conspired with the client to make the misleading representations in the financial statement. SEC v. Mattel, Inc? presents another example of how such fraud can be perpetrated. In the early 1970s, Mattel, Inc., the well-known toy maker,commenced a program of manipulating accounts receivable, inventories, and expenses in order to improve its financial statements. Mattel held the sales journal open after the close of a quarter. Thus, sales for the subsequent quarter were recorded in the earlier one, even though the merchandise was actually shipped after the close of that quarter. The result was an increase in sales for the earlier quarter and a decrease for the later one. The overall effect was an increase in income for the fiscal year. Matte