Challenges to the fraud triangle: Questions on its usefulness
MetadataShow full item record
Fraud is increasing with frequency and severity. In this paper, I explore the assertion of the fraud triangle as a useful practitioner framework employed to combat fraud. This paper is anchored through Fairclough's critical discourse theory, and is supported with evidence from three accounting fraud cases. The findings indicate that the Association of Certified Fraud Examiner's (ACFE) perpetuates a discourse that presents a restricted version of fraud. Fraud is a multifaceted phenomenon, whose contextual factors may not fit into a particular framework. Consequently, the fraud triangle should not be seen as a sufficiently reliable model for antifraud professionals.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Lokanan, Mark (European Accounting Review, 2017)The paper maintains that all acts of financial crimes can be explained within a general theory of moral action and analyzed as such. In this regard, the paper presents such a theory – Situational Action Theory (SAT) – and ...
Lokanan, Mark (Journal of Theoretical Accounting Research, 2018)The fraud triangle (FT) has been criticized by scholars and practitioners for not being thorough enough to include every occurrence of fraud. However, not every case of fraud can follow the FT and the problem might have ...
Lokanan, Mark (Journal of Accounting and Auditing: Research & Practice, 2018)In the spring of 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada (“Court”) rendered a decision in Hercules Managements Ltd. v. Ernst & Young  (“Hercules”) that left shareholders out in the cold. Ever since the verdict in Hercules ...