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.
DescriptionThis is the accepted manuscript version of the article. Permission is granted by Taylor & Francis for this version to be deposited in this repository. The version of record is available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2015.05.002.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Lokanan, Mark (Journal of Financial Crime, 2019)Purpose The purpose of this paper is to formulate and propose a fraud investigation plan that forensic accountants can use to investigate financial frauds. In particular, the paper sets out the structure and rationale of ...
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 Forensic & Investigative Accounting, 2018)This study examines the effectiveness of Cressey’s (1953) fraud risks factors adopted by the AICPA and the ACFE in detecting fraud in banks involved in the LIBOR scandal. Cressey (1993) posits that, for fraud to occur, ...