Hi,
The assignment is attached and please give me a quote for this.
I will provide the reading material that is needed to complete this assignment. You must have to consult the reading material that will be provided by me.
The reference style is APA style (6th/7th edition).
It must have 3000 words without the reference list.
Assessment item 1 - Organisational Vulnerabilities
back to top
Value: 55%
Due Date: 13-Sep-2020
Return Date: 07-Oct-2020
Length: 3000 words
Submission method options: EASTS (online)
TASK
back to top
Assessment Item 1 requires you to prepare a critical evaluation of an organisations financial crime risks and make recommendations on how the identified risk factors should be mitigated.
When preparing for this assessment item you need to consider and present on:
1. Nature, type and structure of organisation,
2. Operational risk factors*,
3. Organisational culture risk factors*,
4. Contextual risk factors*.
You will be required to demonstrate:
1. How the identified risk factors contribute to financial crime that might be committed against, by, or within the selected organisation.
You will then be required to:
1. Critically appraise the available financial crime control strategies you have learned during your studies,
2. Select suitable control measures capable of mitigating the identified risks,
3. Defend your selection of financial crime control strategies.
*These are risk factors that lead to crime, not the crimes itself.
“For students undertaking this subject as part of the Certificate/Diploma/Master of Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorist Financing program, you must use either Money Laundering or Terrorist Financing as your crime whilst following all other instructions posed by the question”.
RATIONALE
back to top
This assessment task will work towards assessing the following learning outcome/s:
• be able to categorize the risk factors that contribute to the incidence of financial crime.
• be able to assess the appropriateness of using a range of financial crime prevention strategies to combat a range of financial crimes.
• be able to prepare a financial crime control plan that complies with relevant national and international ISO guidelines.
MARKING CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
back to top
Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Fail
Identification of organisational financial crime risk areas - 25 Organisational financial crime risk areas are stated clearly and described comprehensively. Organisational financial crime risk areas are stated, described, and clarified so that understanding is not seriously impeded by omissions. Organisational financial crime risk areas are stated, described, and clarified so that understanding is not too seriously impeded by omissions. Organisational financial crime risk areas are stated but these responses leaves some areas poorly defined, or unexplored. Organisational financial crime risk areas are stated without clarification or description.
Understanding of theoretical concepts underpinning fraud risk prevention - 25 Theoretical concepts underpinning the fraud risk prevention are stated clearly and described comprehensively, delivering all relevant information necessary for full understanding. Information relating to the major fraud risk prevention considerations is taken from source(s) with enough interpretation/ evaluation to develop a comprehensive analysis or synthesis while viewpoints of experts are questioned thoroughly. Thoroughly (systematically and methodically) analyzes own and others assumptions and carefully evaluates the relevance of contexts when presenting a position. Theoretical concepts underpinning the fraud risk prevention are stated, described, and clarified so that understanding is not seriously impeded by omissions. Information relating to major fraud risk prevention considerations is taken from source(s) with enough interpretation/ evaluation, to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are subject to questioning. Identifies own and others assumptions and most relevant contexts when presenting a position. Theoretical concepts underpinning the fraud risk prevention Societal and investigative influences are stated, described, and clarified so that understanding is not too seriously impeded by omissions. Information relating to major fraud risk prevention considerations is taken from source(s) with some interpretation/ evaluation to develop an analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are taken as mostly fact, with some questioning. Identifies own and others assumptions and several relevant contexts when presenting a position. Theoretical concepts underpinning the fraud risk prevention stated but the response leaves some areas poorly defined, or unexplored. Information relating to major fraud risk prevention considerations is taken from source(s) with limited interpretation /evaluation in an effort to develop an analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are taken as mostly fact, with little questioning. Questions some assumptions. Identifies several relevant contexts when presenting a position. Theoretical concepts underpinning the fraud risk prevention stated without clarification or description. Information relating to major fraud risk prevention considerations is taken from source(s) without any interpretation/ evaluation. Viewpoints of experts are taken as fact, without question. Shows a limited or emerging awareness of present assumptions. Begins to identify some contexts when presenting a position.
Critical Thinking - 25 Issues are stated clearly and described comprehensively, delivering all relevant information necessary for full understanding. Information is taken from source(s) with enough interpretation/ evaluation to develop a comprehensive analysis or synthesis while viewpoints of experts are questioned thoroughly. Thoroughly (systematically and methodically) analyzes own and others assumptions and carefully evaluates the relevance of contexts when presenting a position. Specific positions taken are imaginative, taking into account the complexities of an issue. Limits of position are acknowledged. Others points of view are synthesized within position. Issues are stated, described, and clarified so that understanding is not seriously impeded by omissions. Information is taken from source(s) with enough interpretation/evaluation, to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are subject to questioning. Identifies own and others assumptions and most relevant contexts when presenting a position. Specific positions take into account the complexities of an issue. Others points of view are acknowledged within position. Issues are stated, described, and clarified so that understanding is not too seriously impeded by omissions. Information is taken from source(s) with some interpretation/evaluation to develop an analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are taken as mostly fact, with some questioning. Identifies own and others assumptions and several relevant contexts when presenting a position. Specific positions mostly take into account the complexities of an issue. Others points of view are mostly acknowledged within position. Issues are stated but the description leaves some terms undefined, ambiguous or unexplored. Information is taken from source(s) with limited interpretation /evaluation in an effort to develop an analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are taken as mostly fact, with little questioning. Questions some assumptions. Identifies several relevant contexts when presenting a position. May be more aware of others assumptions than ones own (or vice versa). Specific position acknowledges different sides of an issue. Issues are stated without clarification or description. Information is taken from source(s) without any interpretation/ evaluation. Viewpoints of experts are taken as fact, without question. Shows a limited or emerging awareness of present assumptions. Begins to identify some contexts when presenting a position. Specific position is stated, but is simplistic and obvious.
Referencing, presentation, use of source material, structure, organisation and development of ideas - 25 The overall writing style and presentation conveys complex meaning in a clear and concise manner. Referencing complies with all APA 6th edition requirements. Assumptions are made explicit. Details are germane, original, and convincingly interpreted. The work demonstrates logical and subtle sequencing of ideas through well-developed paragraphs; transitions are used to enhance organization. Paragraphs have thoughtful supporting detail sentences that develop the main idea. The writing articulates the argument in a concise manner. There are limited grammatical, spelling, APA 6th referencing style and punctuation errors in the work. The work offers solid reasoning. Assumptions are recognizable or made explicit. Contains appropriate details or examples. Paragraphs have sufficient supporting detail sentences that develop the main idea. Paragraph development present but not perfected. The writing conveys meaning in a straightforward manner with minimal grammatical, spelling, APA 6th referencing style and punctuation errors. Offers less than solid reasoning. Assumptions are not always recognized or made explicit. Contains some appropriate details or examples. Paragraphs provide some supporting detail sentences that help in the development of the main idea. The writing generally conveys meaning, although may include a number of errors. Referencing in APA 6th style is present. The work offers somewhat obvious support that may be too broad. Details are too general, not interpreted, irrelevant or inappropriately repetitive. Paragraphs lack supporting detail sentences. Organization of ideas is not fully developed. The written work is substandard. Errors in usage including poor grammar, spelling, referencing and punctuation impede meaning. The work offers simplistic, undeveloped, or cryptic support for the ideas. Inappropriate or off-topic generalizations, faulty assumptions, errors of fact. Paragraphs fail to develop the main idea. No evidence of structure or organization.
PRESENTATION
back to top
The essay submission must comply with the following guidance:
1. Must be in MS Word format.
2. Must have the student name, student number, and assessment item title clearly identified on the assignment.
3. Must consist of an introduction/body/conclusion.
4. 12 point Times New Roman.
5. 1.5 line spacing.
6. Subheadings centred.
7. Text justified left.
8. One line separating paragraphs.
9. No numbered or bullet-point lists.
10. Use APA referencing in text.
11. Use a reference list or bibliography as required.
12. No footnotes to be used.
REQUIREMENTS
back to top
Word Count.
Important Note For Students – You will see from the instruction on completing your Assessment Item Task that there is a word limit. Please be advised that this will be strictly adhered to. Papers that exceed the word limit by between 11% to 15% will be penalized. Marking will stop at the point that paper exceeds the word limit by 15%.
This works out as:
3000 – nil penalty
3000-3300 – nil penalty
(11%) 3301-3330 – 6 marks deducted from final score
(12%) 3331-3360 – 6.5 marks deducted from final score
(13%) 3361-3390 – 7 marks deducted from final score
(14%) 3391-3420 – 7.5 marks deducted from final score
3421 + (Stop marking, student also receives 7.5 mark penalty from final score)
The reference list must have at least 10 suitable publications and consist of a mix of academic journal articles, texts and reports. Reference to Wikipedia and newspaper articles is unacceptable and should not be used.