Advanced Auditing:

Auditors sometimes distinguish between two kinds of frauds--actual fraud and constructive fraud. Both can have different contextual meanings but the main difference is that the first is where the fraud is intended and in the later, for our context, there is no intent per say but there is gross negligence. In our latter cases, we have encountered scenarios, where we have sometimes questioned the motives of the auditors (a case for actual fraud) or at least convinced ourselves that they were incompetent or "very" negligent. Is one any worse than other? Should they be punished differently? The moral argument would be that the first type is worse than the second one but isn't incompetence much worse? (answer in essy form, min. of 500 words, be detail and specific)