Transactions between related parties have been the subject of increasing concern in recent years. Corporate scandals, overseas and local, have typically involved non‐arm's length transactions contrived between the reporting entity and related companies or affiliates. These scandals provided catalysts for the relatively recent development of accounting standards on related party transactions.This paper considers whether the application of the new pronouncements, particularly the Financial Accounting Standards Boards’ statement 57 and its international equivalent, International Accounting Standard 24, is likely to overcome the problems highlighted in several major scandals. The methodology adopted involves the hypothetical application of the two pronouncements to the pertinent facts in four case studies: (1) Continental Vending, a U.S. criminal court case; (2) Penn Central, a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation case; (3) Tarling (Haw Par), a Singapore criminal court case; and (4) Stanhill, an Australian case investigated by a government appointed Inspector.In each hypothetical application, the resultant presentation is compared with the stated expectations found in the relevant findings of the case. In all cases, SFAS 57 and IAS 24 are found to be deficient.While four case studies may not be sufficient for drawing general conclusions about either SFAS 57 or IAS 24 the conclusions of this study represent preliminary evidence for evaluating those standa