[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Home::
Journal Information::
About the Journal
Aims& Scopes
Editorial Board ::
Articles archive::
All Issues
Current Issue
Publication Ethics::
For Authors::
Guide for Authors
Submission Form
Peer Review Process::
Reviewers Section
Registration::
Registration Form
Site Facilities::
Site map
Search contents
FAQ
Top 10 contents
Inform to friends
Contact us::
Contact Information
Contact us
::
Search in website

Advanced Search
..
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
..
:: ::
Back to the articles list Back to browse issues page
Identifying The Dimensions And Indicators Affecting Managers' Fraud In Financial Reporting Based On The Hexagon Theory Of Fraud: A Meta-Synthesis
Ziba Abdollahi1 , Parviz Piri 2, Hamzeh Didar3 , Ali Rahmani4
1- Ph.D Student of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and management, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran (z.abdollahi@urmia.ac.ir)
2- Associate Professor of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and management, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran (corresponded Author) , p.piri@urmia.ac.ir
3- Associate Professor of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and management, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran (h.didar@urmia.ac.ir)
4- Professor of Accounting, Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran (rahmani@alzahra.ac.ir)
Abstract:   (141 Views)
Today, it is necessary to apply effective procedures to control employees based on agency theory. With this statement, The aim of the present research is to identify the dimensions and indicators affecting managerial fraud in financial reporting based on the hexagonal theory of fraud. Thus, using the meta-synthesis method and the Sandelowski and Barroso model, which includes seven steps, 198 studies published in reputable domestic and foreign journals were examined in the period from 1397 to 1403 AH and from 2015 to 2025 AD. By analyzing the content of these studies, the relevant codes, and measuring the importance and priority of each using a questionnaire and survey of 15 experts and professional professors and using the Shannon entropy method, 6 main categories (pressure, opportunity, ability, justification, arrogance, and collusion), 19 subcategories, 38 concepts, and 158 codes were extracted. The results of the Shannon entropy technique indicate that the justification factor (quality of auditing firms, reduced audit quality, and changing auditors to conceal fraud), ability (education of managers and replacing managers with more qualified ones), motivation (lower asset growth and institutional ownership), arrogance (frequent images of the CEO), and collusion (auditor remuneration) are the most significant indicators affecting managerial fraud in financial reporting. The findings of this research provide a comprehensive theoretical basis and explicit evidence for informing policy evaluations and investigations related to the dimensions and indicators affecting managerial fraud in financial reporting.
 
Keywords: Hexagon Theory Of Fraud, Pentagon Theory Of Fraud Fraudulent Financial Reporting, Metasynthesis
     
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2025/02/11 | Accepted: 2025/03/3
References
1. Achmad, T., I. Ghozali,, & D. Pamungkas. 2022. Hexagon Fraud: Detection Of Fraudulent Financial Reporting In State-Owned Enterprises Indonesia. Economies, 10(1): 3-16
2. Adhania. S, Holiawati, Nofryanti. (2024). The Effect of Hexagon Fraud Theory in Detecting Financial Statement Fraud. International Journal of Digital Marketing Science Vol.1 No.1: 10-23
3. Akomea-Frimpong. I., C. Andoh., & E. D. Ofosu-Hene. 2016. Causes. effects and deterrence of insurance fraud: Evidence from Ghana. Journal of Financial Crime. 23(4): 1-26
4. Albrecht, W. S. (1991). Fraud in government entities: The perpetrators and the types of fraud. Government Finance Review, 7(6), 27-30.
5. Andriani. K. F., K. Budiartha., M. M. R. Sari., & A. A. G. P. Widanaputra. 2022. Fraud pentagon elements in detecting fraudulent financial statement. Linguistics and Culture Review. 6(S1): 686-710.
6. Anggreini. S. Z., & D. N. Himmawan. 2022. Pentagon theory dan model beneish Mscore. Fair Value: Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi dan Keuangan. 5(2):965–973.
7. Apriliana. S., and L. Agustina. 2017. The Analysis of Fraudulent Financial Reporting Determinant through Fraud Pentagon Approach. Jurnal Dinamika Akuntansi 9 (2): 154–65.
8. Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. 2020:1–88.
9. Aulia Haqq. P. N., & G. S. Budiwitjaksono. 2020. Pentagon Fraud analysis for predicting the fraud in financial reporting.Journal of Economics. Business. & Accountancy Ventura.22(3): 319-332.
10. Azhari. H, Lenggogeni. L. 2024. Determinants of Fraudulent Financial Statements Using an Approach Fraud Hexagon. DIJEFA. Vol. 4, No
11. Cahyanti. D. 2020. Analisis Fraud pentagon terhadap Kecurangan Laporan Keuangan. Analisis Fraud Pentagon Sebagai Pendeteksi Kecurangan Terhadap Laporan Keuangan. 53(9): 1689–1699.
12. Cressey, D. (1973). Other People’s Money: A Study in the Social Psychology of Embezzlement. Patterson Smith, Montclair, NJ.
13. Crowe H. 2011. Playing Offense in a High-Risk Environment. Crowe Horwath, New York, NY.
14. Crowe Horwath. (2011). Playing Offense in a High-Risk Environment. Crowe Horwath, New York.
15. Damayani. F., T. Wahyudi. & E. Yuniartie. 2017. Pengaruh Fraud Pentagon Terhadap Kecurangan Laporan Keuangan Pada Perusahaan Infrastruktur Yangterdaftar Di Bursa Efek Indonesia tahun. Jurusan Akuntansi Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Sriwijaya. Vol 11. No 2: 108-128
16. Damayanti. F., C. Kuntadi., R. P. Warsoyo. 2024. Studi Literatur Review: Pengaruh Fraud Hexagon dalam Mendeteksi Financial Reporting with The Audit Committee and Independent Commissioners as Moderating Variables. quality‌ Access to Success Vol. 25. No. 198: 10-19.
17. Eisenhardt. K. M. 1989. Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review. Academy of Management Review: 57–74.
18. Faidah. F., & T. Suwarti. 2018. Deteksi Financial Statement Fraud dengan Analisis Fraud Pentagon pada Perusahaan Manufaktur yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia Periode Tahun 2015–2017. Faculty of Economic and Business. Vol 7. No 2: 8-22
19. Ghaisani. H. M., A. Triyono., D. B. Bawono. 2022. Analysis of Financial Statement Fraud: The Vousinas Fraud Hexagon Model Approach and the Audit Committe as Moderating Variable. The International Journal of Business Management and Technology. Volume 6 Issue 6: 115– 25
20. Khairani. K ., D. Susetyo., Y. Yusnaini., H. Yusrianti. 2024. Fraud Hexagon And Fraudulent Financial Reporting: The Role Of Power Distance. Migration Letters. Volume: 21. No: S3: 824-845
21. Matangkin. L. Ng. S., & A. Mardiana. 2018. Pengaruh Kemampuan Manajerial Dan Koneksi Politik Terhadap Reaksi Investor Dengan Kecurangan Laporan Keungan Sebagai Variabel Mediasi. simak. 16(02): 182– 209.
22. Mukhtaruddin. E. S., Hakiki. A., Saftiana. Y., and Kalsum. U. 2020. Fraudulent Financial Reporting: Fraud Pentagon Analysis in Banking and Financial Sector Companies. Issues in Business Management and Economics 8 (2): 12–24
23. Ongoro. M. O. 2018. The Use of financial ratios in detecting fraudulent financial reporting: the case of companies listed on the Nairobi Securities Exchange (Thesis). Strathmore University.
24. Pradipta. A., & Y. Bernawati. 2019. The Influence of Pressure. Opportunity. Rationalization and Ethical Value on the Accounting FraudTendency. Sustainable Business Accounting and Management Review: 63–71.
25. Sahla. W.A. and A. Ardianto. 2023. Ethical values and auditors fraud tendency perception: testing of fraud pentagon theory. published in the Journal of Financial Crime. Vol. 30. No. 4: 966-982.
26. Sandelowski. M., & J. Barroso. 2006. Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. springer publishing company.
27. Shleifer. A., & Vishny. R. W. 1994. Politicians and firms. The quarterly journal of economics. 109(4):995-1025
28. Sihombing, T., & Panggulu, G, E (2022). Fraud Hexagon Theory And Fraudulent Financial Statement In It Industry In Asean. Jurnal Reviu Akuntansi Dan Keuangan, 12(3), 524-544.
29. Skousen. C. J., K. R. Smith., C. J. Wright. 2009. Detecting and predicting financial statement fraud: The effectiveness of the fraud triangle and SAS No. 99. Corporate governance and firm performance. Vol. 13. Emerald Group Publishing Limited: 53–81.
30. Vousinas. G. L. 2019. Advancing theory of fraud: the S.C.O.R.E. model. Journal of Financial Crime. 26(1): 372–381.
31. Wolfe, D., Hermanson, D.R.(2004). The Fraud Diamond: Considering Four Elements of Fraud. CPA Journal, 38–42.
Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA

XML   Persian Abstract   Print

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Back to the articles list Back to browse issues page
دوفصلنامه علمی حسابداری ارزشی و رفتاری journal of Value & Behavioral Accounting
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.09 seconds with 37 queries by YEKTAWEB 4666