CASE SUBMISSION 1
DUE: 5:00pm (Sydney Time) Friday 14th July (Week 7)
This Case Submission 1 is designed to help you develop analytical and effective writing skills.
It is closely linked with the Course Learning Outcomes (CLO) and the overall Program Learning
Outcomes (PLO) as specified in the Course Outline, particularly in relation to:
• Understand the principles of corporate governance and how they are applied
• Understand the role and responsibilities of directors of public corporations
• Critically evaluate and assess the strengths and weakness of different internal governance
mechanisms
• Apply your knowledge to analyse real corporate examples and cases
• Construct written work which is logically and professionally presented
REQUIRED:
Read the case study: Wirecard's Multibillion-Dollar Fraud: Who Should be Blamed for the
Corporate Governance Failure? (link to the case is available on Moodle) and answer the
following questions, providing support for your answers based on the material covered in the
Course.
1. What aspects of the Wirecard business model made the group vulnerable to fraudulent
reporting? (4 marks)
2. From a Corporate Governance angle: what were the main reasons that lead to Wirecard’s
downfall? (6 marks)
3. Based on the issues Wirecard encountered: Suggest two corporate governance measures
that could have helped prevent the fraud at Wirecard and explain why they would have
helped. (6 marks)
4. When expanding overseas, how can one assess the quality of the governance framework
in a proposed new market? (4 marks)
FINS 3626
International Corporate Governance
UNSW Business School / Accounting
2
FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS
• Answers must be in a word document:
o Times New Roman (or equivalent) Font 12 or larger, double-spaced, with margins
of at least 2.5cm all sides
o No more than three (3) A4 pages excluding a references list (if any)
o Answers beyond these formatting and pages will not be marked
TURNITIN SUBMISSION PROCEDURES
• You can resubmit (i.e., replace) answers as many times as you wish until the due date.
• Originality report will be generated each time you submit for you to check – you are
responsible for checking the “match overview” for plagiarism (see below).
• Turnitin will generate originality report “immediately” after the submission for three re-
submissions. For further re-submissions, the report will be generated after 24 hours. That
is, should you require a fourth re-submission (with an intention to view the originality
report), you will need to do so at least a couple of days prior to the due date.
• You can find UNSW policy on academic integrity and plagiarism at:
https://student.unsw.edu.au/plagiarism
MARKING GUIDELINE
• This submission will be marked out of 20 and comprises four (4) questions.
• Marks are awarded based on your ability to demonstrate (see next page for details):
(i) comprehension of the question
(ii) understanding of the relevant concepts
(iii) ability to logically communicate your opinion in your own words in a concise manner,
in a written format.
• Please note that any writing beyond the formatting requirements stated above will not
be marked.
LATE SUBMISSION
• 5% per day or part thereof (including weekends) from the due date and time
o For example, if submitted at 6:00pm on Friday 14th July and the initial mark is
15/20, 5% penalty means that the final mark will be 10/20.
o Late submission with penalty will be only accepted up to 5 days
o Refer to the Course Outline for further details
SPECIAL CONSIDERATION
Please refer to the Assessment Information section on Moodle or the Course Outline and also
contact the LIC (s.degroote@unsw.edu.au)
Please also refer to the Case Submission Information Document available on Moodle
3
Marking Rubrics
Criteria Meets Expectations Approaches Expectations Doesn’t Meet Expectations
Comprehension of the
Question
All elements of the questions are
considered and answered
appropriately and comprehensively.
Most elements of the questions are
considered and answered
appropriately.
Task and question are
misinterpreted and/or most
elements of the question are not
considered and/or not answered
appropriately.
Understanding of
Relevant Concepts
Opinion is clearly stated and
supported by relevant concepts,
which are contextualised,
synthesised, and explained clearly
and accurately.
It is sophisticated and sound with all
ideas flowing logically, linking
personal experience and reflection
with relevant key concepts.
Opinion is stated and partly
supported by relevant concepts. It is
sound with a mostly logical flow of
ideas and attempts to link personal
perspective with relevant key
concepts.
Opinion is not clearly stated or
supported by relevant concepts.
Ideas or personal perspective is not
included in the response.
Ability to logically
communicate (Written
Communication)
Response is concise and is clearly
and logically structured. Excellent
use of written English language,
which is professional, appropriate to
the task and has no spelling errors.
Response is logically structured.
Good use of written English
language, which is appropriate to
the task and has minimal spelling
errors.
Response is not concise and is not
logically structured. Written English
language is below the required
standard.