IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/accper/v7y2008i3p189-226.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Framework for Identifying (and Avoiding) Fraudulent Financial Reporting

Author

Listed:
  • Wally Smieliauskas

Abstract

This commentary analyzes the relationship of fraud risk assessments to other risk assessments by auditors. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board notes that this is a problem area of current practice. Effective detection of fraudulent financial reporting requires an integrative accounting/auditing conceptual framework. As a result, this paper is as much about accounting theory as it is about auditing. To simplify the development of such an integrated framework, this paper uses an expanded risk model. This effectively results in a risk perspective on fraudulent financial reporting. There are many potential implications but the major findings are as follows. First, the study identifies the crucial role of benchmarks based on acceptable levels of risk to help differentiate between intentional and unintentional misstatements. Such differentiation is critical to successfully implementing the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants' Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 99 and international standards ISA Nos. 240, 540, and 700. Second, the paper shows the importance of not allowing the major categories of risks identified here from getting too high. This paper explains the need to set acceptable levels of these risks, either by standard‐setters as a matter of broad policy, or by individual practitioners as part of the terms of specific engagements. I propose that a major factor in the concept of “present fairly” be the acceptable levels of accounting risks that are defined here, especially the risks due to intentional forecast errors. Third, this paper clarifies how the fraud risk of SAS No. 99, and similar international standards, relates to the current audit risk model framework.

Suggested Citation

  • Wally Smieliauskas, 2008. "A Framework for Identifying (and Avoiding) Fraudulent Financial Reporting," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(3), pages 189-226, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:accper:v:7:y:2008:i:3:p:189-226
    DOI: 10.1506/ap.7.3.1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1506/ap.7.3.1
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1506/ap.7.3.1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Alexander, 1999. "A benchmark for the adequacy of published financial statements," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(3), pages 239-253.
    2. Mary Barth, 2006. "Including estimates of the future in today's financial statements," BIS Working Papers 208, Bank for International Settlements.
    3. Knechel, W. Robert, 2007. "The business risk audit: Origins, obstacles and opportunities," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4-5), pages 383-408.
    4. Peecher, Mark E. & Schwartz, Rachel & Solomon, Ira, 2007. "It's all about audit quality: Perspectives on strategic-systems auditing," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(4-5), pages 463-485.
    5. Erickson, M & Mayhew, BW & Felix, WL, 2000. "Why do audits fail? Evidence from Lincoln Savings and Loan," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 165-194.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wally Smieliauskas, 2012. "Principles‐Based Reasoning about Accounting Estimates," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 259-296, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wright, William F., 2016. "Client business models, process business risks and the risk of material misstatement of revenue," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 43-55.
    2. Wally Smieliauskas, 2007. "What's Wrong with the Current Audit Risk Model?/QU'EST‐CE QUI NE VA PAS DANS LE MODÈLE ACTUEL DE RISQUE DE VÉRIFICATION?," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(4), pages 343-367, November.
    3. Schultz Jr., Joseph J. & Bierstaker, James Lloyd & O'Donnell, Ed, 2010. "Integrating business risk into auditor judgment about the risk of material misstatement: The influence of a strategic-systems-audit approach," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 238-251, February.
    4. Knechel, W. Robert & Salterio, Steven E. & Kochetova-Kozloski, Natalia, 2010. "The effect of benchmarked performance measures and strategic analysis on auditors' risk assessments and mental models," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 316-333, April.
    5. Holm, Claus & Zaman, Mahbub, 2012. "Regulating audit quality: Restoring trust and legitimacy," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 51-61.
    6. Bruynseels, Liesbeth & Willekens, Marleen, 2012. "The effect of strategic and operating turnaround initiatives on audit reporting for distressed companies," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 223-241.
    7. Guénin-Paracini, Henri & Malsch, Bertrand & Paillé, Anne Marché, 2014. "Fear and risk in the audit process," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 264-288.
    8. Du Jianguo & Rauf Ibrahim & Peter Lartey Yao & Rupa Jaladi Santosh & Amponsah Clinton Kwabena, 2019. "The Effectiveness of Internal Controls in Rural Community Banks: Evidence from Ghana," Business Management and Strategy, Macrothink Institute, vol. 10(1), pages 202-218, December.
    9. Churyk, Natalie Tatiana & Stenka, Renata, 2014. "Accounting for complex investment transactions," Journal of Accounting Education, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 58-70.
    10. Wally Smieliauskas, 2012. "Principles‐Based Reasoning about Accounting Estimates," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 259-296, December.
    11. Luippold, Benjamin L. & Kida, Thomas & Piercey, M. David & Smith, James F., 2015. "Managing audits to manage earnings: The impact of diversions on an auditor’s detection of earnings management," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 39-54.
    12. Zhang, Eagle & Andrew, Jane, 2016. "Rethinking China: Discourse, convergence and fair value accounting," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 1-21.
    13. Jannis Bischof & Ulf Brüggemann & Holger Daske, 2012. "Fair Value Reclassifications of Financial Assets during the Financial Crisis," SFB 649 Discussion Papers SFB649DP2012-010, Sonderforschungsbereich 649, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany.
    14. Anne Marie Garvey & Laura Parte & Bridget McNally & José Antonio Gonzalo-Angulo, 2021. "True and Fair Override: Accounting Expert Opinions, Explanations from Behavioural Theories, and Discussions for Sustainability Accounting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-23, February.
    15. Hayoun, Shaul, 2019. "How fair value is both market-based and entity-specific: The irreducibility of value constellations to market prices," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 68-82.
    16. repec:dau:papers:123456789/3505 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Wally Smieliauskas & Kathryn Bewley & Ulfert Gronewold & Ulrich Menzefricke, 2018. "Misleading Forecasts in Accounting Estimates: A Form of Ethical Blindness in Accounting Standards?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 152(2), pages 437-457, October.
    18. Chen, Qiu & Kelly, Khim & Salterio, Steven E., 2012. "Do changes in audit actions and attitudes consistent with increased auditor scepticism deter aggressive earnings management? An experimental investigation," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 95-115.
    19. Tamara A. Lambert & Christopher P. Agoglia, 2011. "Closing the Loop: Review Process Factors Affecting Audit Staff Follow‐Through," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(5), pages 1275-1306, December.
    20. Peter R. Demerjian & John Donovan & Chad R. Larson, 2016. "Fair Value Accounting and Debt Contracting: Evidence from Adoption of SFAS 159," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(4), pages 1041-1076, September.
    21. Zakia Jabeen & Jabir Ali & Nadia Yusuf, 2021. "Difference in business obstacles faced by firms across sizes: evidence from enterprise survey data of India," Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Springer;UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship, vol. 11(1), pages 71-81, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:accper:v:7:y:2008:i:3:p:189-226. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3838 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.