The Determinants of Fraudulent Financial Reporting: (A Systematic Literature Review)

The Determinants of Fraudulent Financial Reporting: (A Systematic Literature Review)

Syerli Novita¹; Tri Widyastuti²; Darmansyah³

¹ Student of Doctor in Economics – Postgraduate School – University of Pancasila – Jakarta – Indonesia

² Professor, Accounting Department – University of Bhayangkara – Jakarta – Indonesia

³ Associate Professor Doctoral Program, Postgraduate School – University of Pancasila – Jakarta – Indonesia

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90300083

Received: 25 February 2025; Accepted: 28 February 2025; Published: 01 April 2025

ABSTRACT

This systematic literature review provides a comprehensive examination of the determinants of fraudulent financial reporting by integrating insights from multiple fraud theories, including the Fraud Triangle, Fraud Diamond, Fraud Pentagon, and Fraud Hexagon. Drawing on studies published between 2013 and 2024, the review synthesizes empirical findings and theoretical developments across diverse contexts and industries. The analysis identifies key themes such as governance mechanisms, managerial motives, financial pressures, and the roles of audit quality and corporate governance in moderating fraud risks. The study highlights how foundational theories like the Fraud Triangle, which emphasizes pressure, opportunity, and rationalization, have been expanded to include additional dimensions such as capability, arrogance, and collusion. These advancements are particularly relevant in addressing the complexities of modern fraud scenarios. Emerging economies, especially in Southeast Asia, exhibit unique patterns of fraud influenced by cultural, economic, and regulatory factors, with frameworks like the Fraud Hexagon providing critical insights. Corporate governance emerges as a pivotal factor, with weak structures often enabling fraud while strong mechanisms, such as effective audit committees and board diversity, mitigate risks. Managerial motives driven by financial pressures and the desire to meet performance benchmarks are also identified as significant predictors. Financial distress further exacerbates the risk of fraudulent activities, cutting across industries such as manufacturing and banking. Technological advancements, including artificial intelligence and data analytics, are increasingly critical in fraud detection, marking a shift from reactive to proactive approaches. Despite these advancements, gaps remain in addressing the dynamic nature of fraud and its evolution in response to technological and global changes. This review underscores the need for longitudinal and cross-cultural studies to deepen understanding and enhance preventative strategies.

Keywords:   Fraudulent financial reporting, fraud heptagon, corporate governance, managerial motives, audit quality

INTRODUCTION

Fraudulent financial reporting has been a persistent issue plaguing organizations across industries and regions, causing severe economic and reputational damage. The collapse of major corporations such as Enron and WorldCom revealed systemic weaknesses in corporate governance and financial oversight, emphasizing the need for comprehensive frameworks to understand and address fraudulent behavior (Rezaee, 2005). Financial fraud undermines investor confidence, distorts market integrity, and imposes significant costs on stakeholders, making it a critical area for academic and practical inquiry (Velte, 2023).

The evolution of fraud theories has provided a structured lens to examine the drivers of fraudulent reporting. Cressey’s Fraud Triangle remains foundational, focusing on pressure, opportunity, and rationalization as the core elements of fraud (Abdullah & Mansor, 2015). Expanding on this, Wolfe and Hermanson (2004) introduced the Fraud Diamond, adding capability as a critical dimension, while the Fraud Pentagon and Hexagon theories incorporated arrogance and collusion to address the complexities of modern fraud scenarios (Vousinas, 2019). These theoretical advancements underscore the multifaceted nature of fraud and the necessity of diverse approaches to its detection and prevention.

Emerging economies, particularly in Southeast Asia, face unique fraud challenges shaped by cultural, regulatory, and economic factors. Studies from Indonesia and Malaysia reveal that weak governance structures, combined with high financial pressures, create a fertile ground for fraudulent activities (Achmad, Ghozali, & Pamungkas, 2022; Zakaria & Mohammed, 2021). Frameworks like the Fraud Hexagon have been instrumental in understanding these dynamics, emphasizing the role of situational pressures and collusion in facilitating fraud (Azhari & Lenggogeni, 2024).

Corporate governance plays a pivotal role in mitigating the risk of fraudulent reporting. Research highlights that strong governance mechanisms, such as effective audit committees and board diversity, can significantly reduce fraud risks (Marzuki et al., 2019; Al Daoud, Ku Ismail, & Lode, 2015). Conversely, weak governance structures often enable fraud by failing to provide adequate oversight and accountability (Velte, 2023). The alignment of governance practices with ethical standards and robust internal controls emerges as a recurring theme in fraud prevention strategies.

Managerial motives, particularly those driven by financial pressures and performance benchmarks, are consistently identified as significant predictors of fraudulent behavior. Hasnan, Abdul Rahman, and Mahenthiran (2013) demonstrated that earnings management practices often escalate into fraudulent reporting when managerial incentives prioritize short-term gains over long-term sustainability. Financial distress further exacerbates this risk, with studies showing its prevalence in industries such as manufacturing and finance (Pramana et al., 2019; Reskino & Darma, 2023). These findings highlight the interplay between internal organizational dynamics and external economic pressures in shaping fraud outcomes.

Technological advancements are reshaping the landscape of fraud detection, shifting from traditional reactive approaches to proactive and predictive methodologies. Artificial intelligence and data analytics are increasingly utilized to identify anomalies and patterns indicative of fraud (Sánchez-Aguayo et al., 2021). However, the dynamic nature of fraud necessitates continuous adaptation of detection frameworks to address emerging challenges, such as cyber-enabled fraud and global financial interconnectedness (Josua, Alao, & Ige, 2023). This review seeks to synthesize these developments, offering a holistic understanding of fraudulent financial reporting and proposing avenues for future research.

RESEARCH METHOD

A systematic literature review methodology was employed to identify and synthesize research on the determinants of fraudulent financial reporting. The review process involved a comprehensive search of electronic databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, using keywords such as “fraud,” “fraudulent financial reporting,” “governance,” “Fraud Pentagon,” “fraud hexagon,” and “Fraud Heptagon.” The search was limited to peer-reviewed articles published between 2013 and 2024 to ensure the inclusion of both seminal and recent studies. Articles were screened based on their relevance to the research objectives, theoretical contributions, and empirical rigor.

Figure 1: Searching, Screening, and Extracting the Data

Inclusion criteria were established to refine the selection process. Studies had to explicitly examine factors influencing fraudulent financial reporting, employ recognized theoretical frameworks, and provide clear methodological details. Both qualitative and quantitative research were considered to ensure a holistic understanding. Exclusion criteria included studies lacking empirical data or those focused solely on conceptual discussions without application to financial fraud contexts. This rigorous selection process resulted in 45 articles, which formed the foundation for the).

Data extraction was conducted systematically to capture key information from the selected studies, including publication year, region, industry focus, theoretical framework, and key findings. A thematic analysis was performed to identify recurring patterns and emerging themes. The theoretical frameworks used, such as the Fraud Triangle, Fraud Diamond, Fraud Pentagon, and Fraud Hexagon, were analyzed to understand their applicability across different contexts. The extracted data were then synthesized to draw connections between governance mechanisms, managerial motives, financial pressures, and technological advancements in fraud detection (Booth, Sutton, & Papaioannou, 2016).

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DUSCUSSION

Publication Year Distribution

To identify and visualize the demographic aspects of the articles included in the systematic literature review, we will focus on key details such as:

Figure 2: Publication Year Distribution

The distribution of articles across the publication years highlights the increasing academic focus on fraudulent financial reporting over the past decade. Beginning with foundational studies in 2013, there has been a noticeable uptick in research intensity, particularly from 2017 onward. This trend reflects the growing complexity of fraud in the financial ecosystem and the corresponding advancements in theoretical frameworks and detection technologies. Notably, the years 2020 to 2024 account for a significant proportion of the studies reviewed, indicating heightened scholarly interest likely driven by technological innovations such as artificial intelligence and the implications of global financial crises, including those induced by the COVID-19 pandemic. The clustering of publications in recent years underscores the dynamic nature of this field and the imperative for ongoing research to address emerging challenges in fraudulent reporting. Such temporal insights not only contextualize the evolution of fraud research but also signal critical periods of academic and practical focus that align with global economic and regulatory changes.

Theoretical Frameworks

Fraud Triangle Theory Developed by Cressey, the Fraud Triangle posits three elements—pressure, opportunity, and rationalization—as the primary drivers of fraud. These elements are considered the foundational motivations for individuals committing fraud. Pressure refers to the personal or professional stress that motivates individuals to act unethically, while opportunity arises from weak internal controls or lapses in oversight that make fraud possible. Rationalization allows perpetrators to justify their actions, often believing that their behavior is justified or harmless (Abdullah & Mansor, 2015).

Empirical studies have demonstrated the wide applicability of the Fraud Triangle across industries and organizational contexts. For instance, Velte (2023) noted that financial pressures, such as the need to meet revenue targets, frequently intersect with the availability of opportunities, particularly in organizations with weak governance structures. This framework’s simplicity makes it highly adaptable, though critics argue that it oversimplifies the complexities of modern fraudulent behaviors.

Fraud Diamond Theory Wolfe and Hermanson expanded the Fraud Triangle by adding capability as a fourth element, recognizing the critical role of personal competence in executing fraud. Capability includes the perpetrator’s skill set, position of authority, and ability to exploit opportunities effectively. According to Wolfe and Hermanson (2004), capability transforms potential fraud into actualized fraud, as individuals with specialized knowledge or authority are better equipped to manipulate systems.

This theory has gained traction in explaining complex fraud cases where perpetrators used advanced knowledge or technological expertise. Sunardi and Amin (2018) highlighted the Fraud Diamond’s relevance in industries with high technological dependency, where individuals often exploit intricate systems to commit fraud. However, the model’s limitation lies in its focus on the individual, potentially underestimating systemic factors.

Fraud Pentagon Theory The Fraud Pentagon extends the Fraud Diamond by introducing arrogance and competence as additional dimensions. Arrogance reflects a perpetrator’s belief in their superiority, leading them to act without fear of consequences, while competence emphasizes their ability to control situations to perpetuate fraud. Apriliana and Agustina (2017) noted that the inclusion of arrogance addresses a critical psychological aspect often observed in high-profile fraud cases.

The Fraud Pentagon is particularly relevant in corporate governance studies, as arrogance often correlates with unchecked executive power. Nirmala et al. (2021) observed that organizations with centralized authority structures are more vulnerable to fraud perpetuated by overconfident leaders. While comprehensive, the model’s complexity requires more nuanced research designs for empirical validation.

Fraud Hexagon Theory The Fraud Hexagon adds collusion and situational pressures to the Fraud Pentagon, recognizing the collaborative nature of many fraud schemes. Collusion involves multiple individuals conspiring to exploit systemic weaknesses, while situational pressures reflect external conditions, such as economic downturns, that exacerbate fraud risks. Achmad et al. (2022) emphasized that collusion is particularly common in large organizations, where hierarchical structures obscure fraudulent activities.

This theory’s strength lies in its ability to contextualize fraud within broader organizational and environmental frameworks. Febriani et al. (2023) demonstrated its applicability in public sector studies, where complex networks of relationships often facilitate fraud. Despite its advancements, the Fraud Hexagon’s integration into practical fraud detection systems remains limited due to its complexity.

Fraud Heptagon Theory The Fraud Heptagon builds on the Fraud Hexagon by incorporating external environmental factors as a seventh element. These factors include regulatory changes, technological advancements, and social dynamics that indirectly influence fraud risks. Ariany Djami and Murtanto (2024) observed that the Heptagon model provides a holistic view of fraud by bridging individual motivations with systemic conditions, making it highly applicable in industries undergoing rapid change.

The Heptagon model is particularly relevant in analyzing fraud within dynamic industries such as technology and finance, where external pressures often interact with internal weaknesses. Satata et al. (2024) noted that this framework helps explain the interplay between evolving regulations and organizational adaptability in mitigating fraud. However, its broader scope also introduces challenges in isolating specific determinants, necessitating robust methodological approaches for effective application.

Figure 3: Distribution of Theoretical Framework

Determinants of Fraudulent Financial Reporting

Governance Mechanisms Corporate governance mechanisms serve as a cornerstone in preventing and detecting fraudulent financial reporting. Effective governance involves establishing strong oversight structures, such as independent audit committees, transparent reporting lines, and robust board governance. Al Daoud et al. (2015) demonstrated that firms with diversified boards and active institutional ownership are less likely to engage in fraud, as these features enhance accountability and transparency. Similarly, Marzuki et al. (2019) emphasized the role of governance diversity in fostering a culture of ethical financial practices. However, weak governance systems provide ample opportunities for fraud. Organizations with ineffective or absent internal controls are particularly vulnerable, as they fail to detect fraudulent activities promptly. Velte (2023) observed that governance lapses, including limited oversight by audit committees and management dominance, significantly increase fraud risks. Addressing these weaknesses requires comprehensive reforms and the alignment of governance policies with international best practices.

Managerial Motives Managerial motives remain one of the most significant predictors of fraudulent financial reporting. These motives often stem from the pressure to meet financial performance benchmarks, such as earnings targets or stock price expectations. Research by Hasnan et al. (2013) highlighted that managers under financial strain are more likely to manipulate earnings, particularly in the absence of effective oversight mechanisms. Similarly, Pramana et al. (2019) showed that the desire to maintain stakeholder confidence often drives executives to engage in unethical reporting practices. Beyond performance pressures, personal incentives such as bonuses or career advancement play a crucial role. Managers driven by self-interest may exploit their positions to override internal controls or rationalize fraudulent actions. Reskino and Darma (2023) emphasized the need for ethical training and the integration of accountability mechanisms to counterbalance managerial motives and reduce fraud risks.

Financial Pressures Financial distress is another critical determinant influencing fraudulent reporting. Firms facing declining revenues, high debt burdens, or liquidity constraints are more likely to resort to unethical practices to maintain a facade of stability. Research by Pramana et al. (2019) found that financial pressures are particularly pronounced in industries with cyclical demand, where maintaining investor confidence is paramount. The interplay between external economic pressures and internal financial health further exacerbates fraud risks. Reskino and Darma (2023) demonstrated that firms in distressed financial positions often prioritize short-term gains over long-term integrity, creating a breeding ground for fraud. Strategies to mitigate these risks include strengthening financial oversight and implementing early warning systems to identify distress signals.

Ethical and Psychological Factors Ethical lapses and psychological factors contribute significantly to fraudulent behaviors. Organizational culture often shapes employees’ ethical decision-making processes, with toxic environments fostering a higher propensity for fraud. Wira Utami and Purnamasari (2021) noted that ethical climate significantly influences employees’ likelihood to rationalize unethical actions. Psychological factors, such as stress and cognitive biases, also play a critical role. Handoko et al. (2023) highlighted that individuals under intense psychological pressure are more prone to justify unethical behavior. Building a culture of transparency and fostering ethical leadership can mitigate these risks, encouraging employees to uphold integrity even in challenging situations.

Audit Quality and Delay The quality and timeliness of audits serve as critical safeguards against fraudulent reporting. High-quality audits conducted by reputable firms ensure a thorough examination of financial statements, reducing the likelihood of undetected fraud. Chen et al. (2022) found that audit quality significantly deters financial misstatements by enhancing the credibility of reported data. Audit delays, on the other hand, increase fraud risks by providing perpetrators with extended windows to manipulate financial data. Nuristya and Ratmono (2022) observed that timely audits act as a deterrent by creating accountability and minimizing opportunities for fraud. To enhance audit effectiveness, firms should prioritize the engagement of qualified auditors and implement strict timelines for financial reviews.

Fraud Heptagon Dimensions (Indicators) The Fraud Heptagon integrates seven dimensions that collectively explain fraudulent behaviors: pressure, opportunity, rationalization, capability, arrogance, collusion, and external environmental factors. Each dimension represents a critical factor influencing the likelihood of fraud, making the Heptagon a comprehensive framework for understanding fraud risks (Ariany Djami & Murtanto, 2024). External environmental factors, such as regulatory changes and technological advancements, interact with internal dynamics to create complex fraud scenarios. Satata et al. (2024) emphasized that understanding these dimensions requires a multidimensional approach, integrating insights from behavioral, organizational, and systemic perspectives. By addressing these indicators, organizations can develop targeted strategies to mitigate fraud risks and strengthen financial reporting integrity.

Emerging Themes and Models

Integration of Fraud Theories Recent developments in fraud detection and prevention have led to the integration of existing theories into more comprehensive models, such as the S.C.O.R.E. model and the Fraud Heptagon. The S.C.O.R.E. model, developed by Vousinas (2019), synthesizes elements from multiple fraud frameworks to provide a holistic understanding of fraud’s root causes. It incorporates the traditional dimensions of pressure, opportunity, and rationalization, alongside systemic and environmental factors like regulatory influences and technological capabilities. By expanding the analytical lens, the S.C.O.R.E. model accommodates the dynamic nature of fraud in contemporary business environments.

The Fraud Heptagon, introduced by Ariany Djami and Murtanto (2024), builds upon the Fraud Hexagon by adding external environmental factors as a critical dimension. These factors include regulatory changes, economic instability, and technological disruptions, which interact with internal organizational vulnerabilities to create complex fraud scenarios. The Heptagon’s multidimensional approach enables practitioners to identify and address systemic issues that traditional models might overlook. For instance, its emphasis on external pressures highlights the need for adaptable governance practices that evolve with changing regulatory landscapes.

These integrated models are particularly relevant in addressing the complexities of fraud in globalized markets. Vousinas (2019) argues that the S.C.O.R.E. model’s emphasis on systemic factors makes it a valuable tool for multinational corporations navigating diverse regulatory environments. Similarly, the Fraud Heptagon’s focus on external pressures provides actionable insights for industries undergoing rapid technological and economic changes. However, the complexity of these models also presents challenges in terms of implementation, requiring sophisticated analytical tools and interdisciplinary expertise.

Technological Interventions Technological advancements have revolutionized fraud detection by enabling more proactive and precise interventions. Data mining and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are at the forefront of this transformation, offering tools to analyze vast datasets and identify anomalies indicative of fraudulent behavior. Sánchez-Aguayo et al. (2021) highlight that AI-powered algorithms can detect patterns and trends that may elude traditional audit methods, enhancing both the speed and accuracy of fraud detection processes.

Machine learning models, in particular, have demonstrated significant potential in predicting and preventing fraud. These models learn from historical data to identify red flags and predict the likelihood of fraudulent activities. For instance, AI systems can analyze transaction patterns to detect irregularities that suggest manipulation or misrepresentation. The integration of AI with blockchain technology further strengthens fraud prevention efforts by providing transparent and immutable records, thereby reducing opportunities for falsification.

Despite their advantages, these technological tools also present challenges, including high implementation costs and the need for specialized expertise. Additionally, the reliance on historical data can introduce biases, potentially leading to false positives or negatives in fraud detection. To maximize the benefits of technological interventions, organizations must invest in training and infrastructure, as well as establish ethical guidelines for the use of AI and data analytics in fraud detection. By addressing these challenges, technological interventions can significantly enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of fraud prevention strategies.

Comparative Analysis of Fraud Determinants Across Industries and Global Regions

Fraudulent financial reporting varies significantly across industries and global regions due to differences in regulatory frameworks, economic pressures, and governance structures. While the banking and financial sectors are highly regulated, reducing opportunities for fraud, manufacturing and retail industries often exhibit higher risks due to supply chain complexities and operational opacity. For instance, financial institutions in the United States are subject to stringent regulations such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, whereas emerging economies in Southeast Asia have relatively weaker enforcement mechanisms, increasing vulnerability to fraud. Future research should incorporate cross-industry and cross-regional analyses to identify specific vulnerabilities and develop targeted fraud prevention strategies.

The banking sector, due to its systemic importance, is subject to rigorous regulatory oversight in most developed economies. Regulatory bodies such as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the UK, and the European Banking Authority (EBA) enforce stringent compliance measures to prevent fraudulent activities. However, even with strict regulations, financial institutions have witnessed major fraud cases, such as the Wells Fargo fake accounts scandal and the LIBOR manipulation scheme. These incidents highlight that while strong regulatory frameworks reduce fraud risks, they do not eliminate them entirely. Fraudulent financial reporting in the banking sector often stems from incentive structures that prioritize short-term financial gains over long-term stability, demonstrating that governance culture plays a crucial role alongside regulation.

In contrast, manufacturing and retail industries face different fraud risks due to their complex supply chains and operational processes. In these sectors, fraudulent activities often arise from inventory manipulation, revenue recognition fraud, and misrepresentation of financial statements to meet performance targets. For example, Toshiba’s accounting scandal involved inflating profits by delaying loss recognition, revealing governance lapses despite Japan’s generally robust corporate oversight. Similarly, in emerging markets, weak enforcement mechanisms and lax accounting standards create an environment where fraudulent practices are more prevalent. The presence of multiple stakeholders, suppliers, and intermediaries in manufacturing and retail industries also increases the difficulty of detecting and preventing fraud, necessitating stronger internal controls and third-party audits.

The technology sector presents unique fraud risks due to the rapid pace of innovation and the challenge of valuing intangible assets. Companies in this industry frequently use aggressive revenue recognition strategies, particularly startups aiming to attract investors. Cases such as the Theranos scandal, where misleading financial and operational claims were made to secure funding, demonstrate how fraud in the tech industry is often linked to exaggerated growth projections and lack of independent verification. Additionally, as technology companies expand globally, they must navigate varying regulatory landscapes, which can either facilitate or hinder fraudulent financial reporting. Ensuring transparency in financial disclosures and fostering a culture of ethical leadership are critical in mitigating fraud risks in this sector.

Regional differences in fraud risks are influenced by legal structures, economic development, and corporate governance traditions. In developed economies with stringent legal enforcement, fraud risks are often mitigated by strong regulatory frameworks and investor protections. However, in emerging economies, limited regulatory resources, corruption, and political interference weaken enforcement mechanisms, making fraudulent financial reporting more pervasive. For instance, corporate scandals in Brazil, India, and China have highlighted gaps in governance that enable financial misreporting. Addressing these disparities requires strengthening regulatory oversight, improving financial literacy among investors, and enhancing cross-border collaboration to tackle fraudulent activities in multinational corporations.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDAS

Conclusion

This review synthesizes diverse perspectives on the determinants of fraudulent financial reporting, bringing to light the intricate interplay of factors such as governance mechanisms, managerial motives, and financial pressures. By tracing the evolution of theoretical frameworks from the foundational Fraud Triangle to advanced models like the Fraud Heptagon, the review highlights the increasing complexity of fraud and the necessity for multifaceted approaches to its understanding and prevention. These frameworks have provided valuable insights into the triggers and enablers of fraud, allowing organizations to design targeted interventions. However, their universal applicability remains a challenge, particularly in culturally and technologically diverse environments.

Governance mechanisms continue to emerge as critical in shaping organizational resilience against fraud. Effective governance structures, including independent audit committees and robust internal controls, have been shown to mitigate fraud risks significantly. Yet, weak governance, characterized by limited oversight and excessive managerial power, often facilitates fraudulent behavior. Managerial motives driven by financial pressures and personal incentives further underscore the need for transparent and accountable leadership practices. This review underscores the importance of aligning governance with ethical principles to foster a culture of integrity.

Technological advancements represent both an opportunity and a challenge in the fight against fraud. While artificial intelligence, data analytics, and blockchain technologies have revolutionized fraud detection, they have also enabled new, sophisticated fraud techniques. The rapid evolution of technology demands continuous adaptation of fraud detection frameworks, incorporating real-time monitoring and predictive analytics to stay ahead of fraud perpetrators. Future studies must explore the integration of these technologies with existing governance practices to create holistic and adaptive fraud prevention systems.

The review also identifies significant gaps in the current literature, particularly in cross-cultural analysis, longitudinal studies, and evolving fraud techniques. Cross-cultural research could provide insights into how diverse cultural norms and values influence fraud dynamics, offering a more inclusive perspective on global fraud prevention. Longitudinal studies, on the other hand, are critical for understanding how fraud risks and detection mechanisms evolve over time. These studies can illuminate trends and causal relationships that remain hidden in cross-sectional analyses, providing a roadmap for adaptive and sustainable fraud prevention strategies.

In conclusion, this review emphasizes the need for a more integrated and dynamic approach to understanding fraudulent financial reporting. By addressing gaps in cross-cultural and longitudinal research and leveraging technological advancements, future studies can build on the foundation laid by existing frameworks. The goal is to develop robust, adaptable systems that not only detect but also preempt fraudulent behaviors, contributing to more transparent and resilient financial ecosystems worldwide.

Gaps and Future Research Directions

Cross-Cultural Analysis Fraudulent financial reporting varies significantly across cultural contexts, influenced by differences in regulatory environments, ethical norms, and corporate governance practices. However, there is a scarcity of comparative studies that examine these cultural differences in-depth. Understanding how cultural dimensions, such as individualism versus collectivism or uncertainty avoidance, shape fraud determinants can provide critical insights for multinational firms operating across diverse regions. For example, research could explore how cultural values influence managerial motives and ethical decision-making in corporate settings. Studies focusing on cross-national comparisons could help identify unique vulnerabilities and strengths in different cultural contexts. The lack of cross-cultural analysis limits the applicability of existing fraud detection frameworks, which are often based on assumptions rooted in Western business practices. Expanding research to include diverse cultural perspectives would enhance the robustness of these frameworks and facilitate their adaptation to globalized business environments. Future research could employ mixed-method approaches, combining quantitative analyses with qualitative insights, to explore the nuanced interplay between cultural factors and fraud dynamics. This approach would not only fill a critical research gap but also inform the development of tailored strategies to mitigate fraud risks in culturally diverse settings.

Evolving Fraud Techniques As technology advances, so do the methods used to commit fraudulent financial reporting. Emerging fraud techniques, such as deepfake technology, blockchain exploitation, and AI-driven scams, pose new challenges for traditional detection and prevention methods. Existing frameworks must evolve to address these sophisticated techniques, which are often designed to exploit technological loopholes. Josua et al. (2023) emphasize the urgency of developing innovative frameworks that incorporate real-time monitoring and adaptive algorithms capable of detecting cybercrime-related fraud. Incorporating artificial intelligence and blockchain technology into fraud detection systems offers a promising avenue for addressing these emerging threats. Additionally, the rise of decentralized finance (DeFi) and cryptocurrency markets has introduced novel fraud risks that require specialized attention. Fraudulent practices in these domains, such as pump-and-dump schemes and unauthorized token creation, highlight the limitations of existing regulatory and detection mechanisms. Research into these evolving techniques should focus on the intersection of technology and fraud, identifying patterns and vulnerabilities unique to digital platforms. By bridging the gap between technological advancements and fraud prevention, future studies can help create more resilient financial systems.

Longitudinal Studies Most studies on fraudulent financial reporting are cross-sectional, capturing fraud determinants at a single point in time. While these studies provide valuable snapshots, they fail to account for the dynamic nature of fraud, which evolves in response to changes in organizational, economic, and technological contexts. Longitudinal studies are crucial for understanding how fraud risks and detection mechanisms develop over time. Such studies could explore how shifts in governance practices, regulatory environments, and market conditions influence the prevalence and characteristics of fraudulent activities.Longitudinal research also offers the opportunity to assess the long-term effectiveness of anti-fraud measures, such as changes in audit practices or the implementation of advanced technologies. By tracking fraud cases and their outcomes over extended periods, researchers can identify patterns and causal relationships that remain hidden in cross-sectional analyses. This approach would not only deepen our understanding of fraud dynamics but also inform the development of more proactive and adaptive fraud prevention strategies, ultimately contributing to more robust and transparent financial systems.

REFERENCES

1. Abdullah, R., & Mansor, N. (2015). Fraud Triangle Theory and Fraud Diamond Theory: Understanding the Convergent and Divergent For Future Research. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, 5(4), 38–45. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARAFMS/v5-3/1823
2. Achmad, T., Ghozali, I., & Pamungkas, I. D. (2022). Hexagon Fraud: Detection of Fraudulent Financial Reporting in State-Owned Enterprises Indonesia. Economies, 10(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10010013
3. Adi, A. N., Baridwan, Z., & Mardiati, E. (2018). Profitability, Liquidity, Leverage and Corporate Governance Impact on Financial Statement Fraud and Financial Distress as Intervening Variable. Bulletin of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv Economics, 200, 66–74. https://doi.org/10.17721/1728-2667.2018/200-5/9
4. Akbar, T. (2017). The Determination of Fraudulent Financial Reporting Causes By Using Pentagon Theory on Manufacturing Companies in Indonesia. International Journal of Business, Economics and Law, 14(5), 106–133.
5. Al Daoud, K. A., Ku Ismail, K. N. I., & Lode, N. A. (2015). The impact of internal corporate governance on the timeliness of financial reports of jordanian firms: Evidence using audit and management report lags. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(1), 430–442. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n1p430
6. Andrew, A., Candy, C., & Robin, R. (2022). Detecting Fraudulent of Financial Statements Using Fraud S.C.O.R.E Model and Financial Distress. International Journal of Economics, Business and Accounting Research (IJEBAR), 2022(1), 211–222.
7. Andriani, K. F., Budiartha, K., Sari, M. M. R., & Widanaputra, A. A. G. P. (2022). Fraud Pentagon Elements in Detecting Fraudulent Financial Statement. Linguistics and Culture Review, 6(S1), 686–710.
8. Apriliana, S., & Agustina, L. (2017). The Analysis of Fraudulent Financial Reporting Determinant through Fraud Pentagon Approach. Jurnal Dinamika Akuntansi, 9(2), 154–165. https://doi.org/10.15294/jda.v7i1.4036
9. Ariany Djami, R., & Murtanto, M. (2024). Factors That Influence Fraud Heptagon Theory On Financial Statements Fraud (Empirical Study on the Mining Sector Listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the Period 2018-2022). Journal Research of Social Science, Economics, and Management, 4(1), 85–103. https://doi.org/10.59141/jrssem.v4i1.701
10. Azhari, H., & Lenggogeni, L. (2024). Determinants of Fraudulent Financial Statements Using an Approach Fraud Hexagon. Dinasti International Journal of Economics, Finance & Accounting, 4(6), 744–756. https://doi.org/10.38035/dijefa.v4i6.2244
11. Chen, C., Jia, H., Xu, Y., & Ziebart, D. (2022). The effect of audit firm attributes on audit delay in the presence of financial reporting complexity. Managerial Auditing Journal, 37(2), 283–302. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-12-2020-2969
12. Christian, N., Basri, Y. Z., & Arafah, W. (2019). Analysis of Fraud Triangle, Fraud Diamond, and Fraud Pentagon Theory to Detecting Corporate Fraud in Indonesia. The International Journal of Business Management and Technology, 3(4), ISSN 2581-3889.
13. Dewi, K., & Anisykurlillah, I. (2021). Analysis of the Effect of Fraud Pentagon Factors on Fraudulent Financial Statement with Audit Committee as Moderating Variable. Accounting Analysis Journal, 10(1), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.15294/aaj.v10i1.44520
14. Evana, E., Metalia, M., Mirfazli, E., Georgieva, D. V., & Sastrodiharjo, I. (2019). Business Ethics in Providing Financial Statements: The Testing of Fraud Pentagon Theory on the Manufacturing Sector in Indonesia. Business Ethics and Leadership, 3(3), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.21272/bel.3(3).68-77.2019
15. Fadli, M., Supri, Z., & Riyanti, R. (2023). Auditor Perspective in Fraud Detections Using Emotional and Spiritual Quotient. … Accounting Review): Journal of …, 08(01), 1–14. http://jos.unsoed.ac.id/index.php/sar/article/view/7848%0Ahttp://jos.unsoed.ac.id/index.php/sar/article/download/7848/3962
16. Fathmaningrum, E. S., & Anggarani, G. (2021). Fraud Pentagon and Fraudulent Financial Reporting: Evidence from Manufacturing Companies in Indonesia and Malaysia. Journal of Accounting and Investment, 22(3), 625–646. https://doi.org/10.18196/jai.v22i3.12538
17. Febriani, D., Cahyati, A. D., Anisa Putri, & Neneng Lasmita Susanti. (2023). Determinants of Financial Statement Fraud in Perspective Hexagon Fraud Theory. Basic and Applied Accounting Research Journal, 2(2), 62–77. https://doi.org/10.11594/baarj.02.02.04
18. Fitriyah, R., & Novita, S. (2021). Fraud Pentagon Theory for Detecting Financial Statement Fraudulent. Jurnal Riset Akuntansi Kontemporer, 13(1), 20–25. https://doi.org/10.23969/jrak.v13i1.3533
19. Fuad, K., Lestari, A. B., & T, H. R. (2020). Fraud Pentagon as a Measurement Tool for Detecting Financial Statements Fraud. Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, 115(Insyma), 85–88.
20. Ghozali, I. (2018). Corporate Governance Mechanism in Preventing Accounting Fraud: A Study of Fraud Pentagon Model. Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, XIII(56), 549–560.
21. Ginting, C. U., & Hidayat, W. (2019). The effect of a fraudulent financial statement, firm size, profitability, and audit firm size on audit delay. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 9(7), 323–341.
22. Handoko, B. L., Angelyca, A., & Nicholas, A. (2023). Examining the Psychological Aspect: Fraudulent Financial Reporting in Property and Real Estate Companies Listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange During the Covid-19 Pandemic using the Fraud Heptagon Approach. Journal for Re Attach Therapy and Developmental Diversities, 6(10–2), 650–661.
23. Haqq, A. P. N. A., & Budiwitjaksono, G. S. (2020). Fraud Pentagon for Detecting Financial Statement Fraud. Journal of Economics, Business, and Accountancy Ventura Vol., 22(3), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.14414/jebav.v22i3.1788.
24. Hasnan, S., Abdul Rahman, R., & Mahenthiran, S. (2013). Management motive, weak governance, earnings management, and fraudulent financial reporting: Malaysian evidence. Journal of International Accounting Research, 12(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.2308/jiar-50353
25. Janah, N., Rachmawati, L., & Widaninggar, N. (2022). The Effect of Fraud Hexagon Model on Fraud Financial Statements in Companies in the Financial Sector. Assets : Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Akuntansi, Keuangan Dan Pajak, 6(2), 64–76. https://doi.org/10.30741/assets.v6i2.844
26. Jaya Zalukhu, A. A., & Reskino, R. (2024). Analysis of Fraud Hexagon Theory on Fraudulent Financial Reporting Based on The Role of Intellectual Capital As A Mediator That is Influenced by Earnings Management Practices. Co-Value Jurnal Ekonomi Koperasi Dan Kewirausahaan, 15(01). https://doi.org/10.59188/covalue.v15i01.4444
27. Josua, A. A., Alao, O., & Ige, O. E. (2023). Fraud Theories and Global Cybercrime during the Covid-19 Pandemic: The Extended S.C.C.O.R.E Model. International Journal of Reserch Science & Management, 10(10), 14–29.
28. Kamarudin, K. A., & Wan Ismail, W. A. (2014). The effects of audit committee attributes on fraudulent financial reporting. Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing, 10(5), 507–514.
29. Khamainy, A. H., Ali, M., & Setiawan, M. A. (2022). Detecting fi nancial statement fraud through new fraud diamond model : the case of Indonesia. Journal of Financial Crime, 29(3), 925–941. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-06-2021-0118
30. Khamainy, A. H., Amalia, M. M., Cakranegara, P. A., & Indrawati, A. (2022). Financial Statement Fraud: The Predictive Relevance of Fraud Hexagon Theory. Journal of Accounting and Strategic Finance, 5(1), 110–133. https://doi.org/10.33005/jasf.v5i1.249
31. Lastanti, H. S. (2020). Role of Audit Committee in the Fraud Pentagon and Financial Statement Fraud. International Journal of Contemporary Accounting, 2(1), 85–102.
32. Marzuki, M. M., Haji-Abdullah, N. M., Othman, R., Wahab, E. A. A., & Harymawan, I. (2019). Audit committee characteristics, board diversity, and fraudulent financial reporting in Malaysia. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 24(2), 143–167. https://doi.org/10.21315/aamj2019.24.2.7
33. Mohamed, N., Zakaria, N. B., Nazip, N. S. B. M., & Muhammad, N. F. (2021). The Influencing Factors of Employee Fraud in Malaysia Financial Institution: The Application of the Fraud Pentagon Theory. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 20(6), 1–13.
34. Nasir, N. A. B. M., Ali, M. J., & Ahmed, K. (2019). Corporate governance, board ethnicity and financial statement fraud: evidence from Malaysia. Accounting Research Journal, 32(3), 514–531. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARJ-02-2018-0024
35. Ningsih, Y., & Reskino, R. (2023). Determinants of Fraud Detection Financial Reporting with Company Size as a Moderation Variable. International Journal of Social Science and Education Research Studies, 03(02), 313–321. https://doi.org/10.55677/ijssers/v03i2y2023-13
36. Nirmala, P., Devi, C., Agung, A., Putu, G., Ayu, I. G., Budiasih, N., & Rasmini, N. K. (2021). The Effect of Fraud Pentagon Theory on Financial Statements : Empirical Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business Vol, 8(3), 1163–1169. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no3.1163
37. Nugroho, D. S., & Diyanty, V. (2022). Hexagon Fraud in Fraudulent Financial Statements: the Moderating Role of Audit Committee. Jurnal Akuntansi Dan Keuangan Indonesia, 19(1), 46–67. https://doi.org/10.21002/jaki.2022.03
38. Nuristya, E. R., & Ratmono, D. (2022). The Role of Audit Report Lag in Mediating the Effect of Auditor Switching and Financial Distress on Financial Statement Fraud. Sriwijaya International Journal of Dynamic Economics and Business, 6(June), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.29259/sijdeb.v6i2.165-184
39. Pamungkas, I. D., Ghozali, I., Achmad, T., Khaddafi, M., & Hidayah, R. (2018). Corporate Governance Mechanism in Preventing Accounting Fraud: A Study of Fraud Pentagon Model. Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, XIII(2 (56)), 549–560.
40. Pramana, Y., Suprasto, H. B., Putri, I. G. A. M. D., & Budiasih, I. G. A. N. (2019). Fraud factors of financial statements on construction industry in Indonesia stock exchange. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 3(2), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.29332/ijssh.v3n2.313
41. Prihanto, H. (2021). Factors Affecting the Prevention of Corruption Using Fraud Heptagon Approach. Moestopo International Review on Social, Humanities, and Sciences, 1(1), 36–43. https://doi.org/10.32509/mirshus.v1i1.9
42. Purnamasari, P., Rahmani, A. N., & Hartanto, R. (2020). Does Spirituality In The Workplace Reflect The Relationship Between Accounting And Corruption Prevention? Jurnal Reviu Akuntansi Dan Keuangan, 10(3), 414–429. https://doi.org/10.22219/jrak.v10i3.13287
43. Puspitha, M. Y., & Yasa, G. W. (2018). Fraud Pentagon Analysis in Detecting Fraudulent Financial Reporting (Study on Indonesian Capital Market ). International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR), 42(5), 93–109.
44. Raihan Noval Akbar, Adam Zakaria, & Rida Prihatni. (2022). Financial Statement Analysis of Fraud With Hexagon Theory Fraud Approach. Jurnal Akuntansi, Perpajakan Dan Auditing, 3(1), 137–161. https://doi.org/10.21009/japa.0301.09
45. Ramadhan, D. (2020). Root Cause Analysis Using Fraud Pentagon Theory Approach (a Conceptual Framework). Asia Pacific Fraud Journal, 5(1), 118. https://doi.org/10.21532/apfjournal.v5i1.142
46. Reskino, R., & Darma, A. (2023). The role of financial distress and fraudulent financial reporting: A mediation effect testing. Journal of Accounting and Investment, 24(3), 779–804. https://doi.org/10.18196/jai.v24i3.18397
47. Rezaee, Z. (2005). Causes, consequences, and deterence of financial statement fraud. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 16(3), 277–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1045-2354(03)00072-8
48. Riyanti, A. (2021). The Effect of Hexagon Fraud on the Potential Fraud Financial Statements with the Audit Committee as a Moderating Variable. International Journal of Social Science and Human Research, 04(10), 2924–2933. https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v4-i10-36
49. Rostami, V., & Rezaei, L. (2022). Corporate governance and fraudulent financial reporting. Journal of Financial Crime, 29(3), 1009–1026. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-07-2021-0160
50. Sánchez-Aguayo, M., Urquiza-Aguiar, L., & Estrada-Jiménez, J. (2021). Fraud detection using the fraud triangle theory and data mining techniques: A literature review. Computers, 10(10), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers10100121
51. Sangkala, M., & Safitri, N. (2022). Pentagon Fraud Analysis in Detecting Fraudulent Financial Statements in Pharmaceutical Companies Listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX). Proceedings of the International Conference on Social, Economics, Business, and Education (ICSEBE 2021), 205(Icsebe 2021), 210–216. https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.220107.040
52. Sari, M. P., Mahardika, E., Suryandari, D., & Raharja, S. (2022). The audit committee as moderating the effect of hexagon’s fraud on fraudulent financial statements in mining companies listed on the Indonesia stock exchange. Cogent Business and Management, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2150118
53. Sari, S., & Khoiriah, ati. (2021). Hexagon Fraud Detection of Regional Government Financial Statement as A Fraud Prevention on The Pandemic Crisis Era. Wacana Journal of Social and Humanity Studies, 24(2), 90–97.
54. Satata, I. D. P., Sumaryati, A., Pamungkas, I. D., & Minarso, B. (2024). The Role of Institutional Ownership in Detecting Fraudulent Financial Reporting : Fraud Heptagon Model Analysis. Maksimum: Media Akuntansi Universitas Muhammadiyah Semarang, 14(1), 37–47.
55. Situngkir, N. C., & Triyanto, D. N. (2020). Detecting Fraudulent Financial Reporting Using Fraud Score Model and Fraud Pentagon Theory : Empirical Study of Companies Listed in the L . Q . 45 Index. The Indonesian Journal of Accounting Research, 23(3), 373–410. https://doi.org/10.33312/ijar.486
56. Sujana, E., Yasa, I. N. P., & Wahyuni, M. A. (2019). Testing of Fraud Diamond Theory Based on Local Wisdom on Fraud Behavior. Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, 69(Teams 2018), 12–15.
57. Sukmadilaga, C., Winarningsih, S., Handayani, T., Herianti, E., & Ghani, E. K. (2022). Fraudulent Financial Reporting in Ministerial and Governmental Institutions in Indonesia: An Analysis Using Hexagon Theory. Economies, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10040086
58. Sulistyawati, A. I., Yulianti, Saifudin, A’yun, A. Q., Dwi Nugroho, A. H., & Dwianto, A. (2024). Determinant Factors of Auditor’s Ability to Detect Fraud: Auditor Proffesional Scepticism as Moderation. Journal of Ecohumanism, 3(3), 1067–1083. https://doi.org/10.62754/joe.v3i3.3482
59. Sunardi, S., & Amin, M. N. (2018). Fraud detection of financial statement by using fraud diamond perspective. International Journal of Development and Sustainability, 7(3), 878–891.
60. Suryanto, T. (2016). Audit delay and its implication for fraudulent financial reporting: A study of companies listed in the Indonesian Stock Exchange. European Research Studies Journal, 19(1), 18–31. https://doi.org/10.35808/ersj/503
61. Tomy, C., Ikhsan, A., & Zainal, A. (2022). Effect of Audit Delay, Audit Quality and Leverage Against Financial Reporting Fraud: Auditor Switching As a Variable. Jurnal Ilmiah Teunuleh, 3(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.51612/teunuleh.v3i1.82
62. Thamlim, W., & Reskino. (2023). Fraudulent Financial Reporting with Fraud Pentagon Perspective: The Role of Corporate Governance as Moderator. American Journal of Humanities and Social Science Resesarch (AJHSSR), 07(01), 18–38.
63. Umar, H., Partahi, D., & Purba, R. B. (2020). Fraud Diamond Analysis In Detecting Fraudulent Financial Report. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, April.
64. Utami, E. R. (2019). The Analysis of Fraud Pentagon Theory and Financial Distress for Detecting Fraudulent Financial Reporting in Banking Sector in Indonesia (Empirical Study of Listed Banking Companies on Indonesia Stock Exchange in 2012-2017). Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, 102(ICAF 2019), 60–65.
65. Velte, P. (2023). The link between corporate governance and corporate financial misconduct. A review of archival studies and implications for future research. In Management Review Quarterly (Vol. 73, Issue 1). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-021-00244-7
66. Vousinas, G. L. (2019). Advancing theory of fraud: the S.C.O.R.E. model. Journal of Financial Crime, 26(1), 372–381. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-12-2017-0128
67. Wakik, W., Makayanawati, M., & Handayati, P. (2023). Fraud Analysis in the Management of Village Funds Viewed From the Perspective of the Hexagon Theory. PENANOMICS: International Journal of Economics, 2(3), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.56107/penanomics.v2i3.112
68. Westhausen, H.-U. (2017). The escalating relevance of internal auditing as anti-fraud control. Journal of Financial Crime, 24(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-06-2016-0041
69. Widharma, F., & Susilowati, E. (2020). Auditor Switching, Financial Distress, and Financial Statement Fraud Practices with Audit Report Lag as Intervening Variable. Journal of Accounting and Strategic Finance, 3(2), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.33005/jasf.v3i2.135
70. Wira Utami, D. P., & Purnamasari, D. I. (2021). The impact of ethics and fraud pentagon theory on academic fraud behavior. Journal of Business and Information Systems (e-ISSN: 2685-2543), 3(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.36067/jbis.v3i1.88
71. Yadiadi, W., Rezwiandhari, A., & Ramdany, R. (2023). Detecting Fradulent Financial Reporting in State-Owned Company: Hexagon Theory Approach. Jurnal Akuntansi, 10(1), 1–23.
72. Yousefi Nejad, M., Sarwar Khan, A., & Othman, J. (2024). A panel data analysis of the effect of audit quality on financial statement fraud. Asian Journal of Accounting Research, 9(4), 422–445. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJAR-04-2023-0112
73. Zakaria, N. B., & Mohammed, N. F. (2021). The Influencing Factors of Employee Fraud in Malaysia Financial Institution: The Application of the Fraud Pentagon Theory. Article in Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 6(July), 487. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353322388