Forensic Accounting Versus Expertise Practices in Financial Dispute Litigation: The Sample of Ordu Courthouse

The aim of this study is to question judges’ approach from different perspective to forensic accounting profession which emerged to fight financial crime that increased and diversified as a result of abusing information and technology in the world. In the study litigation support dimension of forensic accounting has focused and tried to associate it with expert practices’ current situation which is substitution of it in Turkey. According to the aim the study was carried out with the help of the Civil and Tax Court judges who are responsible for conducting financial dispute case in Turkey and who are the most likely to benefit from the forensic accountancy profession. Data was gathered from a total of six judges, three civil courts judges and three tax court judges, via semi-structured interviews. Interviews were conducted with staff from Ordu courthouse. Obtained data were analyzed by content analysis. According the results it has revealed that judges have no enough information about forensic accounting. They apply to experts very frequently for financial cases but according to them experts do not meet adequately their expectations and they don’t have all qualifications that they must carry. In addition, it has determined that forensic accounting profession is necessary in our judicial system and by implementation of the profession problems resulting from experts like poor quality reporting and long duration of the cases will be decreased.