Investigating the Importance of Fraud Dimensions and Fraud Risk Factors in Modifying the Audit Program Using the Fraud Pentagon Model

Taheri, Masoud; Izadinia, Naser; Moayedfar, Rozita

doi:10.22054/qjma.2018.9826

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

¹ Ph.D. Student of Accounting, University of Isfahan

² associate professor,isfahan university

³ Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Isfahan

https://doi.org/10.22054/qjma.2018.9826

Abstract

The design of the audit program so that it can be used to adequately respond the fraud risk is one of the most important activities that auditors do in their investigations. Paying attention to the most important dimensions and risk factors of fraud can help auditors in this process. In this regard, in this research, the importance of the dimensions and risk factors of fraud in the adjustment of the audit program has been investigated. For this purpose, the fraud Pentagon model has been used. This model includes five dimensions of pressure/motivation, opportunity, rationalization, capability and arrogance. In order to conduct this research, four fraud risk factors were selected by expert opinion for each of the five fraud dimensions. A questionnaire was used to collect data. The statistical population of the study is Iranian association of certified public accountants in year 2018. After distributing and collecting questionnaires, the Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP) method was used to rank the dimensions and risk factors of fraud. The results show that opportunity dimension and fraud risk factors including significant portions of managers’ compensation being contingent upon operating results, financial position, or cash flow, ineffective information, accounting and internal controls systems, restrictions on the auditors’ investigation, level of experience and overconfidence have the highest degree of importance in modifying the audit program

Keywords

References

آذر، عادل؛ فرجی، حجت. (1389). علم مدیریت فازی، تهران، موسسه کتاب مهربان نشر.

پورحیدری، امید؛ بذرافشان، سعید. (1390). اهمیت بسترهای خطر تقلب از دیدگاه حسابرسان مستقل، پژوهشنامه حسابداری مالی و حسابرسی، شماره دهم، 1-25.

حبیبی، آرش؛ ایزدیار، صدیقه؛ سرافرازی، اعظم. (1393). تصمیم گیری چند معیاره فازی. کتیبه گیل، چاپ اول.

کمیته تدوین استانداردهای حسابرسی. (1394). استانداردهای حسابرسی، سایر خدمات اطمینان بخشی و خدمات مرتبط. سازمان حسابرسی.

نجف لو، محمود؛ زنگی آبادی، مصطفی؛ غلامی، پرویز. (1396). تاثیر عوامل خطر تقلب بر تعدیل برنامه حسابرسی، دانش حسابرسی، شماره 68، 261-279.

نمازی، محمد؛ ابراهیمی، فهیمه. (1395). مدل بندی و تعیین اولویت عوامل موثر بر قصد گزارش تقلبهای مالی توسط حسابداران، فصلنامه مطالعات تجربی حسابداری مالی، شماره 49، 1-28.

نیکبخت، محمدرضا؛ شیخ، محمد جواد. (1383). بررسی اهمیت شاخصهای تقلب بالقوه مالی، فصلنامه مطالعات تجربی حسابداری مالی، شماره 5، 61-94.

وحیدی الیزیی، وحید؛ حامدیان، حامد. (1388). برداشت حسابرسان ایران از کارایی علائم خطر در کشف گزارشگری مالی متقلبانه، تحقیقات حسابداری، 162-196.

یزدانی فضل آبادی، فرشته. (1395). شناسایی و رتبه بندی عوامل موثر در تقلب صورتهای مالی بر اساس مثلث تقلب با استفاده از روش AHP، پایان نامه دوره کارشناسی ارشد حسابداری، دانشگاه قم.

Aprilian, S. and Agustina, L. (2017). The Analysis of Fraudulent Financial Reporting Determinant through Fraud Pentagon Approach. Jurnal Dinamika Akuntansi, Vol. 2(9). 154-165.

Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. (2016). Report to the Nations on Occupational Fraud and Abuse.

Binti, N. Omar and Hesri Faizal Mohamad Din. (2010). Fraud Diamond Risk Indicator: An Assessment of Its Importance and Usage. International Conference on Science and Social Research (CSSR), December 5 - 7, Malaysia.

Boritz, J. E., N. Kochetova-Kozloski, and L. A. Robinson. (2015). Are Fraud Specialists Relatively More Effective than Auditors at Modifying Audit Programs in the Presence of Fraud Risk? The Accounting Review, 90 (3), 881-915.

Carcello, J.V., Hermanson, D.R. (2008). Fraudulent Financial Reporting: How Do We Close the Knowledge Gap? Institute for Fraud Prevention, Morgantown, WV

Cressey, D. )1973(. Other People’s Money: A Study in the Social Psychology of Embezzlement. Patterson Smith, Montclair, NJ.

Crowe Horwath. (2011). Playing Offense in a High-Risk Environment. Crowe Horwath, New York, NY.

Douglas M. Boyle, F. Todd DeZoort, Dana R. Hermanson. (2015). The Effect of Alternative Fraud Model Use on Auditors’ Fraud Risk Judgments. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 34, 578–596.

Fortune.(2015).The5BiggestCorporateScandalsof2015.http://fortune.com/2015/12/27/biggest-corporate-scandals-2015/.

Fortvingler, Judit. (2016). Different Approaches to Fraud Risk Assessment and Their Implications on Audit Planning. Periodica Polytechnica Social and Management Sciences, 24(2), 102-112.

Graham, L., Bedard, J. C. (2003). Fraud risk and audit planning. International Journal of Auditing, vol. 7, 55-70.

Hammersley, J.S., Johnstone, K.M., Kadous, K. (2011). How Do Audit Seniors Respond to Heightened Fraud Risk. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 30 (3), 81–101.

Johnson, E., Kuhn Jr., J., Apostolou, B., Hassell, J. (2013). Auditor Perceptions of Client Narcissism as a Fraud Attitude Risk Factor. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32 (1), 203–219.

Johnstone, K. M., and J. C. Bedard. (2001). Engagement Planning, Bid Pricing, and Client Response in the Market for Initial Attest Engagements. The Accounting Review, 76 (2), 199-220.

Kassem, R., Hegazy, M. (2010). Fraudulent Financial Reporting: Do Red Flags Really Help?. Journal of Economics and Engineering, No 4, 69-79.

Mackevicius, J. and Giriunas, L. (2013). Transformational Research of the Fraud Triangle. EKONOMIKA, Vol. 92(4), 150-163.

Makkawi, B., Schick, A. (2003). Are auditors sensitive enough to fraud?. Managerial Auditing Journal, vol. 18, Issue. 6/7, 591-598.

Marks, J. (2011). Why the Fraud Triangle is No Longer Enough. Crowe Horwath.

Moyes, G. D. )2008). ‘CPAs’ Perceptions of Red Flags Used in Detecting Fraud. The Icfai Journal of Audit Practice, vol. 5(1), 47-60.

Rahman, F., Achyani, F. and Zulfikar. (2017). Fraud Pentagon dalam Mendeteksi Financial Statement Fraud.

Rukmana, H. S. (2018). Pentagon Fraud Affect on Financial Statement Fraud and Firm Value Evidence in Indonesia. South East Asia Journal of Contemporary Business, Economics and Law, Vol. 16(5), 118-122.

Shelton, S W, Whittington, O R & Landsittel, D. (2001). Auditing firms’ fraud risk assessment practices. Accounting Horizons, vol.15, no.1, 19-33.

Trompeter, G., Carpenter, T., Desai, N., Jones, K., Riley Jr., R. (2013). A Synthesis of Fraud Related Research. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32 (suppl. 1), 287–321.

Tugas, F. C. (2012). Exploring a New Element of Fraud: A Study on Selected Financial Accounting Fraud Cases in the World. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, Vol. 2 (6), 112-121.

Wilks, J., Zimbelman, M. (2004). Decomposition of Fraud-Risk Assessments and Auditors’ Sensitivity to Fraud Cues. Contemporary Accounting Research, 21 (3), 719–745.

Wolfe, D., Hermanson, D.R. (2004). The Fraud Diamond: Considering Four Elements of Fraud. CPA Journal, 38–42.

Zaki, N. M. (2017). The Appropriateness of Fraud Triangle and Diamond Models in Assessing the Likelihood of Fraudulent Financial Statements- an Empirical Study on Firms Listed in the Egyptian Stock Exchange. International Journal of Social Science and Economic Research, vol. 2, 2403-2433.

Zimbelman, M. F. (1997). The Effects of SAS No. 82 on Auditors’ Attention to Fraud Risk Factors and Audit Planning Decisions. Journal of Accounting Research, 35(Supplement), 75–97.

Empirical Studies in Financial Accounting

Investigating the Importance of Fraud Dimensions and Fraud Risk Factors in Modifying the Audit Program Using the Fraud Pentagon Model

References

References

Volume 15, Issue 59
October 2018
Pages 83-106

Investigating the Importance of Fraud Dimensions and Fraud Risk Factors in Modifying the Audit Program Using the Fraud Pentagon Model

References

References

Volume 15, Issue 59October 2018Pages 83-106

Volume 15, Issue 59
October 2018
Pages 83-106