A Review On Fraud Detection Accounting Essay

Over the past several decennaries, a important sum of academic research has been focused on fraud in general and fiscal statement fraud in peculiar ( Healy and Wahlen, 1999 ) . These surveies address the tendencies, determiners, and effects of fiscal fraud, every bit good as the duty for forestalling, observing, and rectifying that fraud.The moving ridge of fiscal dirts at the bend of the twenty-first century elevated the consciousness of fraud and the hearer ‘s duties for observing it. The frequence of fiscal statement fraud has non seemed to worsen since the transition of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in July 2002.

For illustration, the 2005 two-year study of more than 3,000 corporate officers in 34 states conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers ( PwC ) reveals that in the post-Sarbanes-Oxley epoch, more fiscal statement frauds have been discovered and reported, as evidenced by a 140 per centum addition in the ascertained figure of fiscal deceits ( from 10 per centum of companies describing fiscal deceit in the 2003 study to 24 per centum in the 2005 study ) . The addition in fraud finds may be due to an addition in the sum of fraud being committed and/or besides due to more rigorous controls and hazard direction systems being implemented ( PricewaterhouseCoopers 2005 ) . The high incidence of fraud is a serious concern for investors as deceitful fiscal studies can hold a significant negative impact on a company ‘s being every bit good as market value. For case, the lost market capitalisation of 30 high-profile fiscal dirts caused by fraud from 1997 to 2004 is more than $ 900 billion, which represents a loss of 77 per centum of market value for these houses ( Glass Lewis & amp ; Co. , 2005 ) , while acknowledging that the initial market values were probably inflated as a consequence of the fiscal statement fraud.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Factors Affecting Financial Fraud at an Organization

Statement on Auditing Standards ( SAS ) No.

99, Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit, states that three conditions are by and large present when fraud occurs. First, there is an inducement or a force per unit area to perpetrate fraud. Second, fortunes provide an chance for fraud to be perpetrated ( e.g. , weak controls or ability of direction to overrule controls ) . Finally, there is an attitude or rationalisation for perpetrating fraud. These conditions jointly are known as the fraud trigon. I have reviewed the academic findings related to the presence of these conditions in instances of fiscal statement fraud.

Bell and Carcello ( 2000 ) happen support for the being of fraud trigon conditions for a sample of fiscal fraud companies. They estimate a logistic arrested development theoretical account foretelling the incidence of fraud and happen several hazard factors associated with fraud: rapid growing, weak control environment, direction excessively preoccupied with meeting analysts ‘ prognosiss, direction that lied to hearers or was excessively evasive, ownership position, and an interaction between the control environment and direction attitude toward fiscal coverage. The Bell and Carcello ( 2000 ) survey does non, nevertheless, find grounds of a important association between fiscal fraud and some of the traditional hazard factors such as high direction turnover, rapid industry growing, worsening industry conditions, important and unusual related party minutess, and compensation agreements tied to reported net incomes. Hernandez and Groot ( 2007b ) besides find that the usage of incentive systems and chances for deceitful behavior are associated with higher fraud hazard appraisals by audit spouses ; nevertheless, the most of import factors are senior direction ethical attitudes and dishonest communicating from direction with the external hearer. Rezaee ( 2005 ) , in his analysis of five alleged fraud instances, besides finds support for the being of all three of the fraud trigon conditions in fraud houses.

Many other surveies have focused on merely one of the three facets of the fraud trigon. These surveies are discussed below.


The inducement to misstate net incomes can originate due to coerce to run into analysts ‘ prognosiss, compensation and inducement constructions, the demand for external funding, or hapless public presentation. Dechow et Al. ( 1996 ) , utilizing a sample of 92 houses capable to accounting enforcement releases during the period 1982-1992, happen that an of import motive to pull strings net incomes is the desire to pull external funding at low cost. Erickson et Al.

( 2006 ) look into whether executive equity inducements are associated with accounting fraud. They examine a sample of houses accused of fraud during the 1996-2003 period and make non happen any relation between equity inducements and the likeliness of the house coverage deceitful fiscal information. In contrast, Efendi et Al. ( 2007 ) , utilizing a sample of houses that restated their fiscal statements, find the likeliness of a misstated fiscal statement additions when the CEO has a ample sum of stock options “ in-the-money. ” They besides find that misstatements are more likely for houses constrained by debt compacts, houses raising new debt or equity capital, or houses that have a Chief executive officer who serves as the president of the board. Burns and Kedia ( 2006 ) besides papers that stock options are associated with stronger inducements to misreport because options make CEO wealth a bulging map of stock monetary value.

Beneish ( 1999a ) finds that, for a group of houses subject to accounting enforcement actions by the SEC, directors are more likely to sell equity retentions and exercising stock grasp rights in periods when net incomes are inflated, proposing insider trading behavior may be enlightening about net incomes exaggerations. Summers and Sweeney ( 1998 ) find similar consequences for the relationship between insider trading and fraud. More late, there is grounds that 100s of houses were involved in knowing backdating of stock options ( Lie, 2005 ) , which once more provides grounds that stock option compensation provides inducements for deceitful behaviour.

A Glass Lewis & amp ; Co. ( 2006 ) study states that about half of the companies implicated in backdating their stock options have restated their fiscal statements.With respect to poorly performing houses, Rosner ( 2003 ) examines whether neglecting houses are more likely to prosecute in income-increasing use, and whether hearers detect the over-statements in houses they perceive to be neglecting. Her findings suggest that the behavior of neglecting houses that do non look distressed on the footing of accrual informations, but however show important reduced hard currency flows, is consistent with material net incomes exaggerations in non-going-concern old ages that are followed by overstatement reversals in going-concern old ages. The accrual behavior of these houses resembles that of houses sanctioned by the Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) for fraud.


Statement on Auditing Standards No. 99 ( AU Section 316 ) provides illustrations of hazard factors that may increase the chance to perpetrate fiscal statement fraud ( AICPA, 2002 ) .

These hazard factors include the nature of the industry or the entity ‘s operations such as important complex or related party minutess, uneffective monitoring of direction, a complex organisational construction such as one that involves several legal entities, and uneffective controls due to a deficiency of monitoring of controls or circumvention of controls. Albrecht and Albrecht ( 2003 ) besides discuss factors increasing the chance to perpetrate fraud and note that holding an effectual control construction is likely the individual most of import measure to extinguish ( or minimise ) chance to perpetrate deceitful Acts of the Apostless.Several surveies have shown that uneffective monitoring of direction in the signifier of weak corporate administration is associated with a higher likeliness of fraud. Dechow et Al. ( 1996 ) find that houses pull stringsing net incomes are more likely to hold less independent boards, more likely to hold a unitary construction for president and CEO, more likely to hold a Chief executive officer who is besides the house ‘s laminitis, less likely to hold an audit commission and less likely to hold an outside block holder. Beasley ( 1996 ) besides finds that the proportion of independent members on the board of managers is lower for houses sing fiscal fraud compared to no-fraud houses. Similarly, Farber ( 2005 ) finds that fraud houses have hapless administration comparative to no-fraud houses ( fewer independent board members, fewer audit commission meetings, fewer fiscal experts on the audit commission, a smaller per centum of Big 4 auditing houses, and a higher per centum of CEOs who are besides president of the board ) .

The consequences are consistent with independent corporate administration mechanisms being more effectual in the monitoring map.Abbott et Al. ( 2004 ) turn to the impact of audit commission features ( independency, activity degree, and fiscal expertness ) on the likeliness of fiscal statements being restated ( and besides fraud ) . The writers examine two different groups of houses: 88 houses that restated their fiscal statements ( from 1991-1999 ) every bit good as 44 houses describing fraudulently, both with matched samples. The independency and activity degree of the audit commission are negatively associated with the happening of restatement. There is besides a negative association between an audit commission that includes at least one member with fiscal expertness and the happening of restatement. The consequences are similar for the fraud sample in that companies holding an audit commission with at least one member with fiscal expertness are less likely to register deceitful fiscal statements.

McMullen and Raghunandan ( 1996 ) besides document that companies with fiscal coverage jobs are less likely to hold an audit commission composed of independent managers. Additional research suggests that fiscal and scrutinizing literacy of audit commission members improves the quality of fiscal studies ( McDaniel et al. 2002 ; Bedard et al. 2004 ; Carcello et Al.

2006 ; DeZoort, 1998 )Loebbecke et Al. ( 1989 ) study audit spouses that have had experience with fiscal fraud and happen that dominated determinations by direction and weak internal controls are the primary conditions that increase the chance for fraud. Smith et Al. ( 2000 ) analyze a theoretical account where the strength of internal controls is reciprocally related to the leaning of a director to perpetrate fraud.

In their theoretical account, the hearer ‘s appraisal of the control system affects their allotment of attempt between control proving and substantial testing, but the likeliness of observing the fraud does non increase when the hearer exerts attempt to measure controls. In drumhead, academic research has documented that houses with a weak corporate administration construction are more likely to describe deceitful fiscal information. The higher incidence of fraud among these houses is at least in portion due to the greater chances associated with a hapless administration construction, where corporate administration is one of the controls recognized to turn to the hazard of direction override.

The Role of the Auditor in Reducing Opportunity

Because of their ability to observe and, in some instances, look into deceitful fiscal coverage, external hearers besides act as a important hindrance by cut downing the chance to perpetrate fraud. Most of the surveies analyzing the hearer ‘s function in restraining directors ‘ efforts to pull off net incomes analyze discretional accumulations. High discretional accumulations are non needfully declarative of fraud, but perchance are declarative of aggressive and timeserving coverage.

Research workers have argued that Big N hearers constrain directors ‘ efforts to pull off net incomes through accumulations and document grounds consistent with higher discretional accumulations for houses audited by non-Big N hearers ( Becker et al. , 1998 ; Francis et al. , 1999 ) . Carcello and Nagy ( 2002 ) examine the relation between hearer industry specialisation and fiscal fraud and happen a negative relation. Knapp and Knapp ( 2001 ) examine the effects of audit experience on the effectivity of analytical processs in observing fiscal statement fraud and happen that audit directors are more effectual than audit seniors in measuring the hazard of fraud with analytical processs. Similarly, Bernardi ( 1994 ) finds that directors outperform seniors in a fraud sensing instance when they are exposed to an initial rating of client unity and competency ; nevertheless, this determination is attributable to directors with a high degree of moral development.

Academic surveies have besides investigated whether the length of the client-auditor relationship is likely to impact the quality of the audit. Findingss by and large suggest that longer hearer term of office is associated with greater net incomes quality ( Iyer and Rama 2004 ; Myers et al. , 2003 ) . Specifically related to the frequence of fiscal statement fraud, Carcello and Nagy ( 2004 ) comparison houses cited for deceitful fiscal coverage from 1990 through 2001 to a set of control houses and other non-fraud houses and find that deceitful fiscal coverage is more likely to happen in the first three old ages of the auditor-client relationship ( Casterella et al. 2002 ; Davis et al. , 2003 ; Copley and Doucet, 1993 ) .The audit battle environment has besides been shown to impact fraud hazard appraisals.

Time budget force per unit area can diminish auditor attending to the undertaking of observing fraud ( Braun 2000 ) . Hearers suffer from a “ dilution consequence ” when given both relevant and irrelevant information in measuring the hazard of fraud, and keeping hearers accountable to higher-ups consequences in more conservative fraud hazard appraisals ( Hoffman and Patton, 1997 ; Hackenbrack, 1992 ) .In drumhead, several factors that affect the quality of audits have been found to be associated with the likeliness of client houses describing deceitful fiscal information. Specifically, these are audit house size, the degree of hearer industry specialisation, the length of hearer term of office, and the experience of the hearer. Engagement factors such as clip budget force per unit area and answerability to higher-ups can besides impact an hearer ‘s ability to measure facets of information declarative mood of fraud.


Accounting criterions can lend to cut downing both the chance and attitude toward deceitful fiscal coverage. Nelson et al. , ( 2002 ) find that the preciseness of accounting criterions influences directors ‘ efforts to pull off net incomes.

They find that when accounting criterions are precise, directors are more likely to try net incomes direction with dealing structuring ( such as structuring a rental in a peculiar manner to avoid a capital rental categorization or by opportunistically clocking gross revenues of available-for-sale securities ) , and hearers are less likely to set those efforts. Directors were more likely to do efforts that decrease income with unstructured minutess ( such as increasing or diminishing estimations affecting judgement ) when criterions were imprecise. Directors are more likely to do efforts to increase net incomes, but hearers are more likely to necessitate accommodation in those instances, peculiarly if the sum is material.

Hernandez and Groot ( 2007a ) usage a sample of audit spouse hazard appraisals made as portion of client credence or continuation determinations for a Big 4 audit house in the Netherlands and happen that director unity, honestness, and moralss are considered to be the most of import factors in fraud hazard appraisals, followed by concerns about aggressive gross acknowledgment and accounting estimations. Gillett and Uddin ( 2005 ) find the attitude of the CFO toward the behaviour of deceitful coverage to be a major influence on purpose to misreport ; nevertheless, compensation construction was non found to be a good index of purposes to describe fraudulently.In drumhead, academic research paperss grounds of a relation between many of the inducements, chances, and attitudes identified in the auditing criterions and the being of fraud.

This would propose that the usage of checklists placing the being or absence of these inducements and/or chances for peculiar clients would be helpful in an auditing scene. As discussed in the following subdivision, nevertheless, the findings on the benefits of checklists in placing fraud are assorted.

Procedures and Ability of Auditors to Detect Fraud

Current professional criterions and important counsel require hearers to supply reason- able confidence that fiscal statements are free from stuff misstatements, whether caused by mistakes or fraud. What constitutes “ sensible confidence ” has been extensively and inconclusively debated in the literature and within the accounting profession ( PCAOB, 2005 ; Rezaee, 2004 ; Harrington, 2003 ) .

5 The deficiency of a normally recognized definition of sensible confidence coupled with restrictions of audit methods in placing fraud, cost restraints of audits, and high outlooks by investors have widened the outlook spread sing hearer duty for observing fiscal statement fraud. The CEOs of the six largest International Audit Networks believe that there should be a constructive duologue among investors of planetary companies and capital markets, hearers, and regulators to contract the “ outlook spread ” ( International Audit Networks, 2006 ) .In an attempt to supply counsel to hearers in carry throughing their demands as related to observing fiscal statement fraud, the AICPA issued SAS No. 82 in 1997 and later SAS No. 99 in 2002, entitled Hearers ‘ Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit. Among other things, these criterions provide hearers with a checklist of hazard factors to see when doing a fraud hazard appraisal.

In this subdivision, we foremost discuss research related to the utility of checklists in general, and so we discuss the findings of research specifically related to SAS No. 82 and SAS No. 99. We conclude this subdivision with a treatment of research related to other fraud sensing determination AIDSs such as arrested development and analytical processs.

Symptoms of fraud are frequently referred to as “ ruddy flags. ” SAS No. 99 identifies “ ruddy flags ” as hazard factors and farther categorizes those hazard factors in the three countries included in the fraud trigon: pressures/incentive, chance, and attitudes/rationalizations.

Albrecht and Albrecht ( 2003 ) categorise the symptoms of fraud into six types: ( 1 ) accounting anomalousnesss ; ( 2 ) internal control failings ; ( 3 ) analytical anomalousnesss ; ( 4 ) extravagant life styles ; ( 5 ) unusual behavior ; and ( 6 ) tips and ailments. One of the major challenges in placing fraud is that while symptoms of fraud ( “ red flags ” ) are observed often, the presence of such issues is non needfully declarative of fraud ( Albrecht and Romney 1986 ) and probe of such anomalousnesss normally consequences in a decision that fraud was non the implicit in cause. It is besides hard to unite and burden fraud hazard factors to measure overall fraud hazard and explicate an audit program ( Patterson and Noel, 2003 ) .

Further, due to efforts by culprits to hide their Acts of the Apostless, “ ruddy flags ” may be comparatively few in frequence and child in sum, at least in the early phases of deceitful fiscal coverage.Surveies analyzing the usage of questionnaires or checklists in measuring fraud hazard have found assorted consequences. In one of the first surveies in this country, Pincus ( 1989 ) examines the efficaciousness of a “ ruddy flags ” questionnaire for measuring the hazard of stuff fraud of a client utilizing 137 hearers as topics. Her findings suggest that the usage of a questionnaire was dysfunctional for the fraud instance, i.e. , questionnaire users assessed the hazard of fraud to be lower than nonusers.

Similarly, Asare and Wright ( 2004 ) analyze the impact of alternate hazard appraisal methods ( hazard checklist versus no checklist ) and audit plan development ( standard plan versus no plan ) on the quality of audit processs chosen and the leaning to confer with fraud experts, with informations based on a instance from an SEC Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Release ( AAER ) . The writers find that hearers given the standard audit plan designed a comparatively less effectual audit plan than those without the standard plan ( comparative to a benchmark plan from a panel of experts ) , and hearers utilizing a standard checklist made lower hazard appraisals than those without a checklist. However, they did happen a higher fraud hazard appraisal was associated with a leaning to seek audience of fraud experts.

Relative Impact of Fraud Audit Standards

Academic surveies have besides attempted to place the impact of fraud auditing criterions on audit pattern.

Shelton et Al. ( 2001 ) analyse audit manuals and pattern AIDSs and happen that, although all of the houses studied include all of the SAS No. 82 factors in their audit pattern AIDSs, certain other fraud hazard factors identified in academic research are non included in house pattern AIDSs, such as ( 1 ) whether fraud hazard appraisals are separate or integrated with other hazard appraisal patterns ; ( 2 ) the timing of fraud hazard appraisal ; and ( 3 ) the method of measuring fraud hazard. These findings suggest that hearers limit their consideration of ruddy flags to those included in the questionnaire.Glover et Al. ( 2003 ) happen support for the usage of questionnaires by comparing pre-and post-SAS No. 82 planning judgements. The writers find that post-SAS No.

82 judgements are more sensitive to fraud hazard factors. For case, post-SAS No. 82 participants are more cognizant of the demand to modify audit programs and are more likely to increase the extent of their audit trials in response to increased fraud hazard, as compared with the pre-SAS No. 82 participants. Glover et Al.

( 2003 ) , nevertheless, do non happen grounds that hearers modify the nature of their planned trials in response to fraud hazard either before or after SAS No. 82. These findings are consistent with Zimbelman ( 1997 ) , who examines whether SAS No. 82 caused hearers to pass more clip reexamining fraud cues and planing audit programs that are more sensitive to fraud hazard. The consequences suggest that individually measuring fraud hazard will act upon hearers ‘ attending to fraud cues and audit planning determinations and lead to overall additions in budgeted hours, but the nature of audit programs may non be affected.Apostolou et Al.

( 2001 ) analyze how hearers evaluate the comparative importance of 25 direction fraud hazard factors ( “ red flags ” ) in the fraud hazard appraisal required by SAS No. 82. They find direction features and influence over the control environment ruddy flags were about twice every bit of import as operating and fiscal stableness features ruddy flags, and about four times every bit of import as industry conditions red flags. Furthermore, these three features account for about 40 per centum of the determination weight.Using an experimental attack with 52 audit directors as topics, Wilks and Zimbelman ( 2004a ) examine the usage of the fraud trigon decomposition in SAS No.

99. Specifically, they investigate whether separate appraisals of attitude, chance, and inducement hazards prior to measuring overall fraud hazard improves an hearer ‘s sensitiveness to high degrees of inducement or chance hazards. The writers find that hearers that decompose fraud hazard appraisals are more sensitive to chance and inducement cues when doing their overall appraisals than hearers that merely do an overall fraud hazard appraisal. The increased sensitiveness to chance and inducement cues, nevertheless, appears to go on merely when those cues suggest low fraud hazard. When chance and inducement cues suggest high fraud hazard, hearers are every bit sensitive to those cues whether they use a decomposition or a holistic attack.In another survey, Wilks and Zimbelman ( 2004b ) recommend that, because of the strategic nature of fraud, policymakers should replace criterions that inhibit hearers ‘ strategic concluding with criterions that encourage such logical thinking. Specific findings include: ( 1 ) hearers who use long checklists tend to be inaccurate in measuring fraud hazard ; ( 2 ) hearers by and large overweigh hints about direction ‘s character, which are likely to be incorrect ; ( 3 ) hearers are frequently insensitive to new grounds sing fraud hazard ; and ( 4 ) when hearers use processs based on anterior audits, they become predictable and less effectual. Wilks and Zimbelman ( 2004b ) suggest that ( 1 ) audit criterions should be designed to see how direction might pull strings fraud cues ; ( 2 ) criterions should promote hearers to garner new, unusual, or random audit grounds ; and ( 3 ) hearers should develop audit schemes that are unpredictable.

Carpenter ( 2008 ) examines brainstorming Sessionss ( as required by SAS No. 99 ) and ensuing hearer fraud judgements. Interestingly, the consequences of brainstorming were an overall loss in the figure of thoughts but the coevals of more quality fraud hazard appraisal thoughts. The betterment in effectivity from her experimental research is particularly apparent in senior and director hearers ‘ concluding fraud hazard appraisals. Carpenter et Al. ( 2006 ) find that when fraud is present, a group that interactively brainstorms outperforms hearers brainstorming separately and those that do non brainstorm, supplying farther grounds of the benefit of synergistic brainstorming Sessionss. The consequences of this research are peculiarly relevant given the findings from PCAOB review squads of cases where audit squads did non keep or document a brainstorming session, held the brain- storming session after substantial testing had already begun, or did non hold all cardinal members of the audit squad nowadays at the session ( PCAOB, 2007b ) .

Hackenbrack ( 1993 ) investigates the consequence of hearer experience with different-sized clients on hearer ratings of deceitful fiscal coverage indexs utilizing two experiments. He finds that hearers assigned chiefly to audits of big companies placed more accent on the chances to perpetrate fraud than hearers assigned to little companies. Reasons for this difference relate to differences in control constructions between big and little houses and the consequence of such differences on hearer perceptual experiences of the importance of chances. One suggestion is that “ ruddy flag ” lists need to take into history the consequence of client size on different fraud hazard factors.

Arrested development Models and Other Decision Aids

Several surveies have examined whether the usage of theoretical accounts, such as arrested development theoretical accounts, im- proves upon hearers ‘ ability to observe fraud.

Bell and Carcello ( 2000 ) look into whether a logistic arrested development theoretical account including important hazard factors performs good in foretelling fraud utilizing 77 deceitful battles and 305 non-fraud battles with assorted hazard factors included as explanatory variables. A chief determination is that a simple logistic theoretical account outperforms hearers in fraud hazard appraisal. Eining et Al.

( 1997 ) besides find that supplementing a checklist with a theoretical account or adept system AIDSs hearers in measuring fraud hazard and finding appropriate audit processs.To sum up the findings on the usage of determination AIDSs as a tool for observing fraud, there is really limited grounds that the usage of checklists improves an hearer ‘s ability to measure fraud hazard. Much of the research suggests that the usage of checklists and questionnaires may really curtail the hearer ‘s coevals of thoughts, and Wilks and Zimbelman ( 2004b ) provide suggestions for bettering the audit attack. Research besides supports the usage of arrested development theoretical accounts or the usage of expert system AIDSs to better the appraisal of fraud hazard.

An extra country that requires attending is the ability of executive-level direction to overrule internal controls. This important issue was a prevailing cause of many of the late 1990 and early 2000 fiscal dirts ( Tyco, Enron, WorldCom and Adelphia ) . In response, the AICPA issued Management Override of Internal Controls: The Achilles ‘ Heel of Fraud Prevention – The Audit Committee and Oversight of Financial Reporting ( AICPA, 2005 ) . One impact of this white paper is that the rating of internal controls should besides turn to controls to supervise and curtail direction override ( e.

g. , reappraisal of journal entries and diligent audit commission ) . The possibility of direction override is discussed throughout PCAOB Auditing Standard No.

2 and PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 5 ( PCAOB 2004c ; PCAOB 2007a ) ; nevertheless, the PCAOB reviews have still noted cases where audit squads have failed to see the hazard of direction override, peculiarly with regard to journal entries and accounting estimations ( PCAOB 2007b ) .

Analytic Procedures

Analytic processs involve organizing outlooks and finding whether history balances and other informations appear sensible and are frequently used as extra inputs into fraud hazard appraisal. One of the first stairss in organizing outlooks is understanding the client ‘s concern, which Erickson et Al. ( 2000 ) argue is a basic audit process that may hold aided hearers in observing fraud in the audit of Lincoln Savings and Loan.

Analytical processs range from basic scanning to utilizing multifactor arrested development theoretical accounts ( Green and Choi, 1997 ) . Research workers have examined the public presentation of different methods and techniques and their success in observing fraud. The following are wide classs of techniques examined in the literature.Traditional analytical reappraisal, which involves ratio analysis, has yielded limited success in placing fraud. One of the jobs with utilizing ratio analysis is the subjectiveness involved in placing the ratios that are likely to bespeak fraud. Kaminski et Al. ( 2004 ) use a matched sample design and look into the prognostic ability of 21 fiscal ratios for a seven-year period. Of the 21 ratios examined, none were systematically important throughout the sample period examined.

Furthermore, discriminant analysis resulted in misclassifications for fraud houses runing from 58-98 per centum, taking the writers to reason that ratio analysis has limited ability in observing fraud. Kaminski and Wetzel ( 2004 ) conduct a longitudinal scrutiny of 10 fiscal ratios on 30 matched-pair houses utilizing pandemonium theory. They find that none of the ratios exhibited stable or periodic behaviour and make non happen any difference among the kineticss of these ratios for deceitful and non-fraudulent houses. Their survey therefore provides extra grounds on the limited utility of fiscal ratios entirely to observe fraud.Alternatively, Beneish ( 1999b, 1997 ) uses a sample of GAAP lawbreakers to find whether fiscal statement information is utile in placing possible net incomes use.

He finds that fiscal statement information, peculiarly information related to receivables and gross revenues growing, has prognostic ability in a theoretical account of the chance of GAAP misdemeanors. However, Beneish ( 1999b ) notes that while his prognostic theoretical account is more cost-efficient than presuming all houses are non-violators, there is a high rate of misclassification.Calderon and Green ( 1994 ) argue that although analytical reappraisal is typically performed on an history degree, conditioning the priors on exogenic information could supply more accurate signals. They investigate whether analysts ‘ prognosiss are utile in signalling the being of fraud and happen that analysts ‘ prognosiss provide an accurate signal of the presence of fraud when fiscal coverage is deceitful. In the absence of deceitful coverage, nevertheless, the signal performs ill at bespeaking the absence of fraud.Brazel et Al. ( 2006 ) examine whether the relation between fiscal steps and nonfinancial steps can be used to measure fraud hazard. They posit that because fraud houses are improbable to misstate both fiscal statements and nonfinancial steps at the same time, analyzing the difference between the two should assist determination shapers in fraud hazard appraisal.

Brazel et Al. ( 2006 ) find that fraud houses have greater differences between alterations in fiscal steps and alterations in nonfinancial steps, proposing the importance of sing nonfinancial steps when measuring fraud hazard.Another attack to placing possible fiscal fraud is the application of Benford ‘s Law, which involves digital analysis.

Using Benford ‘s Law, one can compare the existent frequence of the figures in a information set with the expected frequence and look into any divergences. Nigrini ( 1999 ) provides a treatment of the theory and illustrations of applications in an auditing scene. Nigrini and Mittermaier ( 1997 ) discourse different analytical processs hearers can execute during the planning phase utilizing Benford ‘s Law and exemplify a instance survey. Durtschi et Al. ( 2004 ) besides suggest that Benford ‘s analysis can be utile as a preliminary fraud sensing tool to place histories with abnormalities, particularly on big informations sets and sets of Numberss that result from mathematical combinations such as histories receivable, and besides when the mean of a set of Numberss is greater than the average and the lopsidedness is positive. They caution, nevertheless, that Benford ‘s analysis is non likely to be fruitful in certain instances such as minutess that are non recorded or histories that have a constitutional threshold to be included. Cleary and Thibodeau ( 2005 ) besides examine whether digital analysis utilizing Benford ‘s Law has merit as a fraud sensing tool, and happen that utilizing a “ digit-by-digit ” attack increases the opportunity of a Type I error, but besides increases the opportunity of happening fraud.

Benford ‘s Law has besides been used to measure tendencies in net incomes direction by analyzing forms in reported Numberss, similar to looking for discontinuities in net incomes ( Nigrini, 2005 ) .Artificial Neural Networks ( ANNs ) have besides been suggested as a tool for making outlooks for history balances ( Koskivaara 2004 ) that can be compared with existent balances. Noting the benefit of nervous webs, Green and Choi ( 1997 ) province that nervous webs “ at the same time measure all informations input, ” this is in contrast with traditional analytical processs that require the hearers to aggregate their findings.

Research workers have explored whether fraud can be identified more expeditiously with the aid of nervous web theoretical accounts as compared to traditional statistical theoretical accounts. Both Fanning et Al. ( 1995 ) and Green and Choi ( 1997 ) find nervous web fraud categorization theoretical accounts to be assuring in observing fraud. Lin et Al. ( 2003 ) develop a fuzzed nervous web theoretical account and happen it to be by and large superior to the traditional theoretical accounts in measuring the hazard of fraud.

In drumhead, the traditional analytical processs have yielded limited success in placing fraud. One of the grounds, possibly, is that direction is in a place to conceal history abnormalities and/or explicate away any unusual divergences in histories. Because of this restriction, as suggested by Calderon and Green ( 1994 ) , hearers should besides see other exogenic factors. In add-on, two possible attacks include using Benford ‘s Law, or utilizing nervous web systems, during analytical reappraisal.

Bad Areas

The PCAOB has identified several bad countries in which fraud either Begins or is more common and in which the hearers may necessitate to execute extra audit processs to place and document fraud hazard ( PCAOB 2004b ) . The countries identified by the PCAOB are gross acknowledgment, important or unusual accumulations, and related party minutess, estimations of just value, quarterly fiscal information, and important or unusual diary entries. We discuss the relevant research in each of these countries.

Gross Recognition

The Committee of Sponsoring Organizations Report ( COSO 1999 ) reveals that about 50 per centum of frauds involve overstated grosss either by describing grosss prematurely or by making fabricated gross minutess. A survey by the General Accounting Office ( GAO 2002 ) found that out of 919 fiscal statement restatements over the clip period January 1997-June 2002, 38 per centum were due to gross acknowledgment issues.

Rezaee ( 2005 ) besides reports that about 38 per centum of fiscal statement fraud is committed by utilizing improper gross acknowledgment. Beasley et Al. ( 2000 ) study that common gross fraud techniques include assumed gross revenues, false verifications, premature gross acknowledgment before the footings of the sale are completed, modified footings through side letters, improper cut off, unauthorised cargos, and consignment gross revenues.

While there is an extended sum of literature related to net incomes direction in general ( Healy and Wahlen, 1999 ) , there is surprisingly small research related to gross acknowledgment patterns. There does look to be support, nevertheless, for placing gross acknowledgment as a bad country. In a recent on the job paper, Caylor ( 2006 ) finds grounds consistent with companies pull offing net incomes around assorted benchmarks through the timing of gross acknowledgment: either speed uping gross acknowledgment by increasing recognition gross revenues and histories receivable or detaining gross acknowledgment through the usage of deferred grosss.Additional research analyzing alterations in the seasonableness and value relevancy of gross environing the release of gross acknowledgment counsel, more specifically AICPA Statement of Position 91-1 ( AICPA 1991, hereafter SOP 91-1 ) related to package gross acknowledgment and SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin 101 ( SEC 1999, afterlife SAB 101 ) , provides grounds that directors use discretion available in acknowledging gross. Zhang ( 2005 ) , in a survey related to SOP 91-1, and Altamuro et Al. ( 2005 ) , in a survey related to SAB 101, both find that acknowledging gross before all footings of the sale have been completed provides more timely and value-relevant information ; nevertheless, it besides reduces the dependability of gross information. These surveies suggest that directors use discretion in gross acknowledgment policies to accomplish coveted consequences ; nevertheless, there are both positive and negative facets associated with the discretion.Marquardt and Wiedman ( 2004 ) examine three net incomes direction contexts: equity offerings where inducements are to increase reported net incomes, direction buyouts where inducements are to diminish reported net incomes, and houses trying to avoid net incomes lessenings.

The consequences suggest that houses publishing equity tend to pull off net incomes upward by speed uping gross acknowledgment ( with related histories receivable being out of the blue high ) , direction buyout houses have un- expectedly low histories receivables, and houses seeking to avoid net incomes lessenings use more transitory, less dearly-won points such as particular points ( one clip accumulations ) . These consequences are consistent with a demand by hearers to fit direction inducements to the types of hazards that should be evaluated as high.

Significant or Unusual Accumulations

The issue of important or unusual accumulations relates chiefly to the knowing exaggeration of accumulations in one period so that net incomes can be managed in subsequent periods through the reversal of those accumulations, and besides neglecting to acknowledge losingss due to plus damages.

These accumulations include allowances for bad debts, loan loss militias, merger-related disbursals, and re- structuring militias, among others. Nelson et Al. ( 2002 ) , in a questionnaire where audit spouses and directors recalled specific experiences they had with clients they believed were trying to pull off net incomes, find cookie jar militias ( i.

e. , knowing exaggeration of accumulations ) to be the most common net incomes direction technique. The General Accounting Office survey ( GAO 2002 ) on fiscal statement restatements found that cost-orexpense-related restatements were the 2nd most common, with 16 per centum of all restatements identified being related to cost or disbursal acknowledgment.

Moehrle ( 2002 ) finds grounds consistent with the usage of restructuring charges as a cooky jar modesty. Moehrle ( 2002 ) examines reconstituting charge reversals and finds that directors are more likely to change by reversal restructuring charges when pre-reversal net incomes autumn abruptly of analysts ‘ prognosiss or when pre-reversal net income is negative. Beatty et Al. ( 2002 ) examine attempts by private versus public Bankss to pull off net incomes when threatened by the possibility of an net incomes diminution. The writers find that public Bankss study fewer little net incomes diminutions, are more likely to utilize loan loss militias and security addition realisations to extinguish little net incomes diminutions, and study longer strings of back-to-back net incomes additions. Similarly, Kanagaretnam et Al.

( 2004 ) find that Bankss use loan loss militias as an net incomes direction vehicle to cut down net incomes variableness, while Kanagaretnam et Al. ( 2003 ) examine inducements and happen that bank directors save net incomes through loan loss militias in good times and borrow net incomes utilizing loan loss militias during bad times.While these surveies focus on net incomes direction and non needfully fiscal statement fraud, they do connote that net incomes direction occurs in topographic points where direction has discretional picks. The consequences support the designation of important or unusual accumulations as a bad country.

Related Parties

Gordon et Al. ( 2007 ) supply a sum-up of research on related party minutess and happen that the mere presence of related party minutess does non look to increase hearer hazard appraisals ; nevertheless, the research besides suggests that related party minutess is one of the top grounds cited for audit failure when a fraud does happen. Bonner et Al. ( 1998 ) analyze a sample of 261 houses that were capable to SEC enforcement actions between 1982 and 1995 and document that 20 per centum of their sample had fraud issues that pertained to associate party minutess.

Most of these instances relate to disclosure jobs ( 17 per centum ) , while 2 per centum of the sample houses reported fabricated related party gross revenues.Beasley et Al. ( 2001 ) look into 56 houses whose hearers were capable to actions by the SEC, for their association with deceitful fiscal statements. They find that 27 per centum of their sample houses had cases where the hearer had either failed to acknowledge or unwrap related party minutess, which, in bend, translated into the coverage of hyperbolic plus values. Gordon and Henry ( 2005 ) analyze a sample of 331 houses and look into whether related party minutess are associated with net incomes direction. They find net incomes direction to be prevailing merely when companies have certain types of related party minutess. Specifically, they find companies that obtain fixed-rate funding from related parties are more likely to pull off net incomes.

In add-on, they find net incomes direction to be less prevailing in companies that have related party minutess with executive presidents or the chief proprietor.

Fair Value Estimates

Auditing just value estimates is the subject of one of the other groups assembled by the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association to supply a sum-up of research to the PCAOB ( Martin et al. 2006 ) .

Martin et Al. ( 2006 ) discourse the recent FASB exposure bill of exchange titled Fair Value Measurements ( FASB, 2004 ) , and Statement on Auditing Standards No. 101, Auditing Fair Value Measures and Disclosures ( AICPA 2003 ) . To day of the month, there has been limited academic research in the countries of gauging and/or mensurating just value. We are non cognizant of any research specifically related to deceitful fiscal coverage through deliberately misstated just value measurings. However, Martin et Al. ( 2006 ) cite research proposing direction opportunistically uses the discretion inherent in just value measurings. For illustration, research in the country of valuing employee stock options suggests that direction uses allowable discretion in estimated theoretical account inputs to bias option just values downward ( Aboody et al.

2006 ; Balsam et Al. 2003 ; Bartov et Al. 2007 ) .

Quarterly Financial Information and Unusual Journal Entries

I was unable to happen any research that straight addresses quarterly fiscal coverage and fraud or the usage of unusual or top-level journal entries and fiscal statement fraud.

Academic research suggests that the 4th one-fourth is used more often to pull off net incomes and settle-up ( Jacob and Jorgensen 2007 ) , and there is besides a greater happening of write-downs and plus gross revenues in the 4th one-fourth ( Elliott and Shaw 1988 ) , which contributes to the increased volatility of 4th one-fourth net incomes relative to other quarters as documented by Collins et Al. ( 1984 ) . In add-on, there is anecdotal grounds that direction uses top-level journal entries to perpetrate fraud ( e.g.

, WorldCom ) . Extra research is needed, nevertheless, both in the country of quarterly fiscal statements and deceitful activity and in understanding the procedure of journal entry reappraisal to observe and forestall fraud.

Conceptual Model

Attitude/RationalizationsLikelihood of Financial Statement FraudOpportunityIncentive/Pressures

Independent Variables Dependent Variable

Chapter THREE


I'm Tamara!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out