Hileli Eylemlerin Nedenlerine İlişkin Paradigma Değişimleri: Üçgen, Elmas ve Diğerleri

Hileli eylemlere neden olan unsurların tanımlanması sıkça tartışılan konuların başında gelmektedir ve kapsayıcı bir entelektüel birikime sahiptir. Muhasebe literatüründe hileli eylemlerin nedenlerine ilişkin öncü paradigmanın hile üçgeni teorisi olduğunu söylemek mümkündür. Değişen iş dünyası ve yaşam tarzı nedeniyle, 1950 yılından günümüze, takip eden yıllarda çok sayıda farklı görüş ortaya atılmıştır. Bunlardan bir kısmı paradigma kaymasına neden olsa da, tam anlamıyla bir dönüşümden söz etmek mümkün değildir. Bu çalışmada, hile üçgeni teorisi ve takip eden modeller karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmiş ve hileli eylemlerin nedenlerine ilişkin odağın çalışanlardan yöneticilere kaydığı ve araştırmacıların davranışsal özellikler üzerinde yoğunlaştığı tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca, hile elması modelinin hileli eylemlerin nedenlerine ilişkin paradigma kayması yaratan yaklaşım olduğu değerlendirilmiştir.

Paradigm Shifts in Causes of Fraudulent Actions: Triangle, Diamond and The Others

Identifying the factors cause fraudulent actions is an intensely debated issue and it has an extensive intellectual pedigree. It is fair to say that fraud triangle theory is the primary paradigm on causes of fraudulent actions in the accounting literature. Due to the changing business world and lifestyle, in the following years, from 1950 to the present, many different views emerged. Although some of these have caused paradigm shifts, we cannot talk about conversion. In this study fraud triangle theory and following models are comparatively examined and it is concluded that the focus on the causes of fraudulent actions has shifted from employees to executives and researchers are more concentrated on behavioural characteristics. In addition, fraud diamond model is considered to be the approach that created the paradigm shift for the causes of fraudulent actions.

PDF

___

Abdullahi, R., Mansor, N., Nuhu, M. S. (2015). “Fraud triangle theory and fraud diamond theory: Understanding the convergent and divergent for future research”, European Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 7, No:28, 30-37.
ACFE. (2018). Report to the Nations. 2018 Global Study on Occupational Fraud and Abuse. https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/acfepublic/2018-report-to-thenations. pdf, (Erişim Tarihi: 10 Haziran 2018).
Adams, R. (2010). “Prevent, protect, pursue – A paradigm for preventing fraud”, Computer Fraud & Security, July (7), 5-11.
Albrecht, W., Albrecht, C., Albrecht, C. (2006). Fraud Examination. 2. Baskı. Thomson South-Western.
Bayraklı, H. H., Erkan, M., Elitaş, C. (2012). Muhasebe ve Vergi Denetiminde Muhasebe Hata ve Hileleri. Ekin Basım Yayın Dağıtım, Bursa.
Capelli, D., Moore, A., Trzeciak, R. (2012). The CERT Guide to Insider Threats: How to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Information Technology Crimes (Theft, Sabotage, Fraud), Pearson Education Inc.
Chen, K. Y. ve Elder, R. J. (2007). Fraud Risk Factors and the Likelihood of Fraudulent Financial Reporting: Evidence from Statement on Auditing Standards No:43 in Taiwan. Working Paper.
Coderre, D. (2009). Computer – Aided Fraud Prevention and Detection: A Step-by-Step Guide. John Wiley & Sons.
Corporate Accounting Scandals. (2018). The 10 Worst Corporate Accounting Scandals of All Time,
http://www.accounting-degree.org/scandals/ , (Erişim Tarihi: 18 Haziran 2018).
Cressey, D. R. (1950). “The criminal violation of financial trust”, American Sociological Review, 15 (6), 738-743.
Dorminey, J., Fleming, A., Kranacher, M. ve Riley, R. A. (2012). “The evolution of fraud theory”. Issues in Accounting Education. 27 (2), 555-579.
Free, C. (2015). “Looking through the fraud triangle: A review and call for new directions”, Meditari Accountancy Research, 23 (2), 175-196.
Gökten, S. ve Karabudak, Ç.Ö. (2017). “Uluslararası vergi planlaması: Türkiye’nin merkez olarak kullanıldığı bir vaka çalışması”, Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, 19 (2), 547-566.
Kaval, H. (2005). Muhasebe Denetimi. Gazi Kitabevi. Ankara. KPMG. (2016). Global Profiles of the Fraudster: Technology Enables and Weak Control Fuel Fraud.
https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2016/05/profiles-of-thefraudster. pdf , (Erişim Tarihi: 25 Haziran 2018).
Kranacher, M., Riley, R. ve Wells, J. (2010). Forensic Accounting and Fraud Examination. 1. Baskı, John Wiley&Sons.
Krummeck, S. (2000). “The role of ethics in fraud prevention: A practitioner’s perspective”, Business Erhics: A European Review, 9 (4), 268-272.
Mackevicius, J. ve Giriunas, L. (2013). “Transformational research of the fraud triangle”, Ekonomika, 92 (4), 150-163.
Marks, J. (2009). Playing Offense in a High-Risk Environment. Crowe Horwath. New York.
Vassiljev, T. (2016). “Concept and periodisation of fraud models: Theoretical review”, 5th International Conference on Accounting, Auditing, and Taxation. Atlantis Press.
Wells, J. (2011). Corporate Fraud Handbook: Prevention and Detection, John Wiley and Sons Publishing.
Wilhelm, W. K. (2004). “The fraud management lifecycle theory: A holistic approach to fraud management”, Journal of Economic Crime Management, 2 (2), 1-38.
Wolfe, D. T. ve Hermanson, D. R. (2004). “The fraud diamond: Considering the four elements of fraud”, CPA Journal, 74 (12), 38-42.