Recent research additionally incorporates psychological insights and the application of technology interventions and investigates their impact on the likelihood of fraud detection by the auditor. A good example would be a hypothetical setting dealing with the feasibility of high-effort audits with a fixed probability, disregarding the specific audit setting (e.g., initial audit and follow-up audit). The same holds for different levels of accountability; auditors are already subject to legal regulations and standards that define their responsibilities and liabilities. They are also accountable to professional organizations, superiors and themselves in the audit firm and various stakeholders, including shareholders, creditors, and the public. Another example entails the assumed extreme sanctions for undetected fraud in experimental settings; they may reduce the chances of undetected fraud, but at the same time, raise audit firm risk of bankruptcy if they fail to detect fraud. The Beneish model has been developed by Professor Messod D. Beneish and widely used by the auditors under modern approach to identify the potential fraud and manipulation by the companies at financial statement level.

Management’s fraud risk assessment

Traditionally, internal audit was how to detect fraud during audit called in after the fraud has already occurred to help piece together what went wrong. But in today’s digital age, waiting for symptoms to appear is a losing game, which is one of the reasons that fraud is a more prevalent topic in the update to the IIA Global Internal Auditing Standards. Internal audit teams need to think more like epidemiologists, using data and technology to catch early warning signs and stop fraud before it spreads. Evaluating internal controls is fundamental in detecting fraud during financial audits.

The statistical model is based on a weighted red flag checklist and suggests the level of fraud risk. The results show that the statistical model improve risk assessment performance, compared to the checklist and the control group without decision aids. This is generally used to detect asset misappropriation and management fraud (Coderre and Warner 1999; Christensen and Byington 2003; Kenyon 2009). One of the most common patterns are round numbers or numbers below a certain threshold (used for money laundering because firms are not allowed to except cash exceeding a predefined amount).

Highly experienced auditors assess the risk correctly as high when fraud is present, and low when it is not present. For less experienced auditors, there is no significant difference between the two cases. The explicit fraud risk assessment instructions have the same effect as high experience, independent of the auditor’s experience.

Understanding Financial Fraud

Undetected fraud may cause the collapse of large corporations, leading to economic instability, job losses, and the disruption of entire industries, such as in the infamous Enron and WorldCom scandals (Yuhao 2010). Stakeholders are becoming more active in holding companies accountable for ethical behavior. The rising demand for accountability makes fraud prevention and early detection even more essential (Paranamanna and Dissanayake 2021). Audit firms that fail to detect fraud, particularly in high-profile cases, face reputational damage and potential legal consequences (Nelson et al. 2008).

This process ensures that auditors obtain reliable and sufficient evidence for their assessments. Effective pattern recognition relies on understanding typical organizational behavior and establishing baseline benchmarks. When transactions deviate from these benchmarks, they prompt auditors to scrutinize specific activities more closely. This process enhances the overall effectiveness of fraud detection efforts within financial institutions. These involve comparing current financial data with historical trends or industry benchmarks to identify unusual fluctuations or patterns. When anomalies are detected, more targeted test samples are used to gather evidence, enhancing fraud detection effectiveness.

Key Fraud Risk Inquiry Techniques

Combining experience and explicit fraud risk assessment instructions produce the most accurate fraud risk assessment. Hammersley et al. (2011) also examine the impact of experience on audit planning judgments. They investigate how experienced auditors respond to increased fraud risk, i.e., an identified material weakness in the internal control system. The results show that experienced auditors assess a higher fraud risk when they receive information about a material weakness. Nonetheless, they are unable to capitalize on their recognition of heightened fraud risk, as they cannot develop higher-quality audit programs. In 1989, Pincus conduct an experiment to determine the effectiveness of a red flag checklist in assessing the risk of material fraud.

Fraud-related audit procedures

In anticipation of long-awaited government proposals to reform audit and corporate governance, auditors are adopting new technologies to help detect and prevent fraud. Fraud can occur in many parts of the financial sector and auditors play a vital role in identifying it. We explore some of the challenges they face, ways auditors can recognise and address fraud, and resources available when doing so. Sponsoring a fraud summit to bring together corporate leaders, the CPA profession and the financial reporting community to identify new ways to reduce the incidence of fraud. Conditions and analytical relationships that caused the auditor to believe additional auditing procedures or other responses were required and any further responses the auditor concluded were appropriate to address such risks or other conditions. COMMUNICATIONS SAS no. 99 says, “Whenever you have determined that there is evidence that a fraud may exist, that matter should be brought to the attention of the proper level of management.

Now see the positive variation where the actual frequency of 1st digit exceeds the standard probable frequency of the same. This variation denotes that the transactions starting with these digits (i.e. 3,4,5,8 & 9) are potentially risky area and needs further verification and application of substantive procedures. Comparative ratio analysis also allows analysts and auditors to spot discrepancies within the firm’s financial statements.

CompanyCompany

Proper planning enhances the effectiveness of audit procedures for fraud detection by focusing on areas such as revenue recognition, cash handling, and expense management. Effective communication between auditors and management is crucial for a successful audit. This exchange helps auditors understand strategic objectives and operational challenges, informing their risk assessment and fraud detection efforts. It also allows auditors to provide feedback on financial reporting practices, fostering continuous improvement.

Understanding Fraud in Auditing

FRAUD RISK FACTORS A fraud risk factor is an event or condition that tracks the three conditions of the fraud triangle. Although fraud risk factors do not necessarily indicate that fraud exists, they often are warning signs where it does. Like SAS no. 82, this standard lists numerous illustrative fraud risk factors to help the auditor in considering whether fraud risks are present.

• The audit function is pressured to become more agile, strategic and unimpeachable.
• When fraud is discovered, a trained fraud investigator or forensic accountant is necessary to complete an investigation and resolve the issue.
• After significant regulatory changes, financial crises, and the COVID-19 pandemic, publications increase in the following years.
• Successful perpetrators of fraud are familiar with the audit procedures external auditors normally perform.
• Instructed auditors achieve 72% accuracy for non-fraud companies and improve the accuracy for fraud companies to 70%.

Fraud detection is not just about numbers; it’s about connecting the dots between data, business practices, and management behavior. With diligence and a proactive approach, auditors can make a significant impact in ensuring transparency and accountability. Hoffman and Patton (1997) research the effect of accountability to superiors on the dilution effect of fraud judgment and conservatism. Auditors with more irrelevant information lower their assessments of the fraud risk (dilution effect) independently of their accountability. However, auditors make more conservative judgments when accountable to their superiors, since those judgments are easier to defend.

Auditors’ Role in Fraud Detection and Risk Assessment

• Internal controls testing for fraud prevention involves evaluating the effectiveness of an organization’s control environment to mitigate fraud risks.
• This paper, therefore, aim to focus on analysing the usage, process and application of Benford’s Law and Beneish Model in detecting accounting fraud.
• This dual approach helps identify discrepancies and suspicious activity, supporting the overall objective of detecting fraud.
• Internal audit teams that are using analytics and machine learning are essentially rolling out early warning systems to keep an eye on key risk indicators.

Risk assessment is central to an auditor’s responsibilities, helping identify and evaluate potential threats to an organization’s financial integrity. This begins with understanding the entity’s environment, business model, and industry-specific challenges to pinpoint areas where risks may arise, such as economic downturns impacting revenue or regulatory changes affecting compliance. I still hear auditors say, “We are not responsible for detecting fraud.” But are we not?

This approach allows auditors to identify anomalies that might otherwise go unnoticed through manual review alone. Conducting effective interviews with personnel is a vital component of audit procedures for fraud detection. These interviews aim to obtain candid information and clarify inconsistencies observed during the audit process. To achieve this, auditors should prepare targeted questions tailored to areas of concern, focusing on suspicious transactions or behavioral anomalies.