BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

HİLELİ FİNANSAL RAPORLAMADA BAĞIMSIZ DENETÇİ SORUMLULUĞUNUN BELİRLENMESİNE YÖNELİK YAPISAL EŞİTLİK MODELİ UYGULAMASI

Yıl 2011, Sayı: 34, 13 - 38, 01.05.2011

Öz

Amerikan Diplomalı Hile Araştırmacıları Kuruluşu ACFE tarafından yayınlanan 2010 Global Hile Raporu’nagöre, dünyada hileli finansal raporlama nedeniyle oluşan kayıplar her yıl ortalama 2.9 trilyon dolardan fazladır.Araştırma içerisinde ele alınan her dört hile olayından birinin neden olduğu kayıp ise en az 1 milyon dolardır.Rakamlarla daha açık bir şekilde ekonomik boyutunun ortaya konduğu hileli finansal raporlama, finansal bilgimanipülasyonlarının ortaya çıkarılmasında ve önlenmesinde kritik bir rol oynamaktadır. Hileli finansal raporlamanın bu kritik rolü finansal sistemin işleyişi açısından da önemlidir. Özellikle yaşanan muhasebe skandallarından sonra, sermaye piyasalarının uğradığı zararlar, muhasebe ve denetim mesleğine olan güvenin sarsılması burolün önemini ortaya koymaktadır. Bir ülkedeki finansal sistemin ve potansiyel ekonomik gelişmenin işleyişine bu denli olumsuz etki yapan bir olgunun incelenmesi gerekliliği araştırmanın temel çıkış noktasını, dolayısıyla da önemini ortaya koymaktadır. Bu doğrultuda çalışmanın temel amacının, Türkiye’deki hileli finansal raporlamada denetçi sorumluluğunun ortaya çıkarılması ve denetçi sorumluluğundan yola çıkılarak denetim mekanizmasının önemini ortaya koymaktır. Çalışmanın temel amacına uygun olarak, hileli finansal raporlamada denetçisorumluluğu ortaya çıkarılmakta ve bu noktadan hareketle kuramsal olarak ortaya konan modeli yapısal eşitlikmodeli ile test edilmektedir

Kaynakça

  • ACFE. Report To The Nations On Occupational Fraud and Abuse, Global Fraud Staudy, http://www.ac- fe.com/rttn/rttn-2010.pdf Erişim Tarihi: 12.08.2010, 2010.
  • AICPA, SAS NO:99, http://www.aicpa.org/download/antifraud/SAS-99-Exhibit.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 15.02.2010.
  • AICPA, SAS NO:82, http://www.aicpa.org/download/antifraud/SAS-82-Exhibit.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 15.02.2010.
  • Beasley, M. S., Carcello, J. Hermanson, D. R. and Lapides P. D. Fraudulent Financial Reporting: Consideration of Industry Traits and Corporate Governance Mechanisms, Accounting Horizons, Volume:14, Issue:4: 441-454,
  • Bedard J. C. and Johnstone. K. M. Earnings Manipulation Risk Corporate Governance Risk and Auditor’s Plan- ning and Pricing Decisions, The Accounting Review, Volume:79, Number:2: 277-304, 2004.
  • Bonner, S. E., Palmrose Z.-V. and Young. S. M. Fraud Type and Auditor Litigation: An Analysis of SEC Acco- unting and Auditing Enforcement Releases, The Accounting Review, Volume: 73(4): 503-532, 1998.
  • Bradshaw, M. T., Richardson A. S. and Sloan. R. G. Do Analysts and Auditors Use Information in Accruals?, Jo- urnal of Accounting Research, Volume: 39, Number:1, June: 45-74, 2001.
  • Braun, K. W. The Disposition of Audit-Detected Misstatements: An Examination of Risk and Reward Factors and Aggregation Effects, Contemporary Accounting Research Volume:18(1): 71-99, 2001.
  • Carcello, J. V. and Nagy. A. L. Audit Firm Tenure and Fraudulent Financial Reporting, http://bus.utk.edu/corp_gov/Research/AudFirmTenureCar2004.pdf Erişim Tarihi: 21.08.2010, 2004.
  • Casterella, J., Knechel, W. R. and Walker. P. L. The relationship of audit failures and auditor tenure. Working paper, University of Florida, 2002.
  • Chung, H., and Kallapur. S. Client importance, non-audit services and abnormal accruals. The Accounting Re- view, Volume: 78, Number: 4: 931-955, 2003.
  • DeAngelo E. Auditor size and Audit Quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics 3: 183-199, 1981.
  • DeFond, M., Raghunandan, K. and Subramanyam. K. R. Do nonaudit service fees impair auditor independence? Evidence from going concern auditor opinions, Journal of Accounting Research, Volume: 40 (4): 1247-1274,
  • Douglas, P.C., Davidson R.A. and Schwartz. B.N. The Effect of Organizational Culture and Ethical Orientation on Accountant’s Ethical Judgement, Journal of Business Ethics, Volume:34: 101-121, 2001.
  • Dunn, P. The impact of insider power on fraudulent financial reporting. Journal of Management, Volume: 30(3): 412, 2004.
  • Hirst, E. D. Auditor Sensivity to Earnings Management, Contemporary Accounting Research, Volume:11, Num- ber: I- II, Fall: 405- 422, 1994.
  • Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes incovariancestructure analysis: Conventional criteria ver- sus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling, Volume: 6: 1–55, 1999.
  • Humphrey, C., Moizer P. and Turley. W.S. Protecting Against Detection: The Case of Auditors and Fraud, Acco- unting, Auditing and Accountability, Volume:6,: 39-62, 1993.
  • Imhoff, E. A. Employment Effects on Auditor Independence, The Accounting Review, Volume:53, Number:4: 881, 1978.
  • Johnson, V. E., Khurana,. K I. and Reynolds. J. K. Audit-firm tenure and the quality of financial reports, Con- temporary Accounting Research, Winter: 637- 660, 2002.
  • Jöreskog, K. G., and Sörbom, D. LISREL 8. User’s reference guide, Chicago, IL: Scientific Software, 1993.
  • Kaplan, S. E. And Reckers. P. M. J. An Examination of Auditor Performance Evoluation, The Accounting Re- view, Volume:60, Number:3, July: 477-487, 1985.
  • Krishnan, G. V. Does Big 6 Auditor Industry Expertise Constrain Earnings Management?, Accounting Hori- zons, Volume: 17(Supplement): 1-16, 2003.
  • Küçük, İ. Finansal Raporlamada Hile-Manipülasyonlar ve Önlenmesi Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İşletme Anabilim Dalı, Muhasebe Finansman Bilim Dalı, İstanbul, 2008.
  • Lin, Z. Lun. Auditor’s Responsibility and Independence: Evidence From China, Research in Accounting Regu- lation, Volume:17: 167-190, 2004.
  • Loebbecke, J. K., Eining M. M. and Willingham. J. J. Auditor’s Experience with Materials Irregularities: Frequ- ency, Nature and Detectability Auditing, A Lournal of Practice and Theory, Volume:9, Number:1: 1-28, 1989.
  • Lord, A. T. Pressure: A Methodological Consideration for Behavioural Research in Auditing. Auditing: A Jour- nal of Practice & Theory, Volume: 11(2): 89- 108, 1992.
  • Özbirecikli, M. ve Süslü, C. Bağımsız Denetim Firmalarının Yolsuzluk Riski Faktörlerini Değerleme Uygulama- ları ve Türkiye’deki Bağımsız Denetim Firmaları Üzerine Karşılaştırmalı Bir Araştırma I, MUFAD Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, Sayı:27, Temmuz: 67-85, 2005.
  • Powell, L., Jubb C., Lange P. and Langfield- S. K. The Distinction between Agressive Accounting and Financi- al Reporting Fraud: Perceptions of Auditors, AFAANZ Conference, http://www.afaanz.org/web2005/papers/po- welll-INT.pdf Erişim Tarihi:11.08.2010, 2005.
  • Rabin, C.E. Determinants of Auditor’s Attitudes Towards Ceartive Accounting, Meditari Accountancy Research, Volume:13, Number:2: 67-88, 2005.
  • Reynolds, K., Deis, D. and Francis. J. Professional service fees and auditor objectivity, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Volume:23 (1): 29-52, 2004.
  • Saad, E. B. and Lesage C. Why are auditors over-blamed in accounting frauds?, http://aaahq.org/mee- tings/AUD2010/WhyAreAuditorsOver-blamed.pdf Erişim Tarihi:14.06.2010, 2010.
  • SPK, Sermaye Piyasasında Bağımsız Denetim Standartları Hakkında Tebliğ (Seri:X,No:22), http://www.spk.gov.tr Erişim Tarihi: 17.06.2010.
  • Şimşek, Ö., F. Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesine Giriş: Temel İlkeler ve LISREL Uygulamaları, Ankara: Eki- noks Yayıncılık, 2006.
  • Velayutham, S. The Accounting Profession’s Code of Ethics, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Volume:14: 503, 2003.
  • http://antifraud.aicpa.org/Resources/Auditors/Regulatory+Cnsiderations/SAS+No.+99+Guidance Erişim Tarihi: 03.2010.
  • http://www.tuik.gov.tr Erişim Tarihi:10.05.2010.

STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODEL SEM APPLICATION FOR THE DETERMINATION OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR LIABILITY IN FRAUDULENT FINANCIAL REPORTING

Yıl 2011, Sayı: 34, 13 - 38, 01.05.2011

Öz

ners ACFE , a potantial total fraud loss of more than $ 2.9 trillion. One- fourth of the frauds in this Report caused at least $ 1 million in loses. The numbers above are illustrated abviously that the economic dimension offraudulent financial reporting and it can be played an important role to detect and prevent financial information manipulation. The critical role of fraudulent financial reporting is also important for functioning of capitalmarkets. Especially after recent accounting and audit failures effects upon the capital markets have resulted inheightened public concern towards the accounting and auditing profession is displayed the important role of fraudulent financial reporting. In this respect the aim of this study, examining auditor liability in fraudulent financial reporting in Turkey and identifying the importance of auditing mechanisms based on auditor liability. Forthe purpose of the study, elements of the auditor’s responsibility to detect fraudulent financial reporting are discussed and put forward a theoretical model of these elements through the measurement model using structuralequation model is created

Kaynakça

  • ACFE. Report To The Nations On Occupational Fraud and Abuse, Global Fraud Staudy, http://www.ac- fe.com/rttn/rttn-2010.pdf Erişim Tarihi: 12.08.2010, 2010.
  • AICPA, SAS NO:99, http://www.aicpa.org/download/antifraud/SAS-99-Exhibit.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 15.02.2010.
  • AICPA, SAS NO:82, http://www.aicpa.org/download/antifraud/SAS-82-Exhibit.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 15.02.2010.
  • Beasley, M. S., Carcello, J. Hermanson, D. R. and Lapides P. D. Fraudulent Financial Reporting: Consideration of Industry Traits and Corporate Governance Mechanisms, Accounting Horizons, Volume:14, Issue:4: 441-454,
  • Bedard J. C. and Johnstone. K. M. Earnings Manipulation Risk Corporate Governance Risk and Auditor’s Plan- ning and Pricing Decisions, The Accounting Review, Volume:79, Number:2: 277-304, 2004.
  • Bonner, S. E., Palmrose Z.-V. and Young. S. M. Fraud Type and Auditor Litigation: An Analysis of SEC Acco- unting and Auditing Enforcement Releases, The Accounting Review, Volume: 73(4): 503-532, 1998.
  • Bradshaw, M. T., Richardson A. S. and Sloan. R. G. Do Analysts and Auditors Use Information in Accruals?, Jo- urnal of Accounting Research, Volume: 39, Number:1, June: 45-74, 2001.
  • Braun, K. W. The Disposition of Audit-Detected Misstatements: An Examination of Risk and Reward Factors and Aggregation Effects, Contemporary Accounting Research Volume:18(1): 71-99, 2001.
  • Carcello, J. V. and Nagy. A. L. Audit Firm Tenure and Fraudulent Financial Reporting, http://bus.utk.edu/corp_gov/Research/AudFirmTenureCar2004.pdf Erişim Tarihi: 21.08.2010, 2004.
  • Casterella, J., Knechel, W. R. and Walker. P. L. The relationship of audit failures and auditor tenure. Working paper, University of Florida, 2002.
  • Chung, H., and Kallapur. S. Client importance, non-audit services and abnormal accruals. The Accounting Re- view, Volume: 78, Number: 4: 931-955, 2003.
  • DeAngelo E. Auditor size and Audit Quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics 3: 183-199, 1981.
  • DeFond, M., Raghunandan, K. and Subramanyam. K. R. Do nonaudit service fees impair auditor independence? Evidence from going concern auditor opinions, Journal of Accounting Research, Volume: 40 (4): 1247-1274,
  • Douglas, P.C., Davidson R.A. and Schwartz. B.N. The Effect of Organizational Culture and Ethical Orientation on Accountant’s Ethical Judgement, Journal of Business Ethics, Volume:34: 101-121, 2001.
  • Dunn, P. The impact of insider power on fraudulent financial reporting. Journal of Management, Volume: 30(3): 412, 2004.
  • Hirst, E. D. Auditor Sensivity to Earnings Management, Contemporary Accounting Research, Volume:11, Num- ber: I- II, Fall: 405- 422, 1994.
  • Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes incovariancestructure analysis: Conventional criteria ver- sus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling, Volume: 6: 1–55, 1999.
  • Humphrey, C., Moizer P. and Turley. W.S. Protecting Against Detection: The Case of Auditors and Fraud, Acco- unting, Auditing and Accountability, Volume:6,: 39-62, 1993.
  • Imhoff, E. A. Employment Effects on Auditor Independence, The Accounting Review, Volume:53, Number:4: 881, 1978.
  • Johnson, V. E., Khurana,. K I. and Reynolds. J. K. Audit-firm tenure and the quality of financial reports, Con- temporary Accounting Research, Winter: 637- 660, 2002.
  • Jöreskog, K. G., and Sörbom, D. LISREL 8. User’s reference guide, Chicago, IL: Scientific Software, 1993.
  • Kaplan, S. E. And Reckers. P. M. J. An Examination of Auditor Performance Evoluation, The Accounting Re- view, Volume:60, Number:3, July: 477-487, 1985.
  • Krishnan, G. V. Does Big 6 Auditor Industry Expertise Constrain Earnings Management?, Accounting Hori- zons, Volume: 17(Supplement): 1-16, 2003.
  • Küçük, İ. Finansal Raporlamada Hile-Manipülasyonlar ve Önlenmesi Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İşletme Anabilim Dalı, Muhasebe Finansman Bilim Dalı, İstanbul, 2008.
  • Lin, Z. Lun. Auditor’s Responsibility and Independence: Evidence From China, Research in Accounting Regu- lation, Volume:17: 167-190, 2004.
  • Loebbecke, J. K., Eining M. M. and Willingham. J. J. Auditor’s Experience with Materials Irregularities: Frequ- ency, Nature and Detectability Auditing, A Lournal of Practice and Theory, Volume:9, Number:1: 1-28, 1989.
  • Lord, A. T. Pressure: A Methodological Consideration for Behavioural Research in Auditing. Auditing: A Jour- nal of Practice & Theory, Volume: 11(2): 89- 108, 1992.
  • Özbirecikli, M. ve Süslü, C. Bağımsız Denetim Firmalarının Yolsuzluk Riski Faktörlerini Değerleme Uygulama- ları ve Türkiye’deki Bağımsız Denetim Firmaları Üzerine Karşılaştırmalı Bir Araştırma I, MUFAD Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, Sayı:27, Temmuz: 67-85, 2005.
  • Powell, L., Jubb C., Lange P. and Langfield- S. K. The Distinction between Agressive Accounting and Financi- al Reporting Fraud: Perceptions of Auditors, AFAANZ Conference, http://www.afaanz.org/web2005/papers/po- welll-INT.pdf Erişim Tarihi:11.08.2010, 2005.
  • Rabin, C.E. Determinants of Auditor’s Attitudes Towards Ceartive Accounting, Meditari Accountancy Research, Volume:13, Number:2: 67-88, 2005.
  • Reynolds, K., Deis, D. and Francis. J. Professional service fees and auditor objectivity, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Volume:23 (1): 29-52, 2004.
  • Saad, E. B. and Lesage C. Why are auditors over-blamed in accounting frauds?, http://aaahq.org/mee- tings/AUD2010/WhyAreAuditorsOver-blamed.pdf Erişim Tarihi:14.06.2010, 2010.
  • SPK, Sermaye Piyasasında Bağımsız Denetim Standartları Hakkında Tebliğ (Seri:X,No:22), http://www.spk.gov.tr Erişim Tarihi: 17.06.2010.
  • Şimşek, Ö., F. Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesine Giriş: Temel İlkeler ve LISREL Uygulamaları, Ankara: Eki- noks Yayıncılık, 2006.
  • Velayutham, S. The Accounting Profession’s Code of Ethics, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Volume:14: 503, 2003.
  • http://antifraud.aicpa.org/Resources/Auditors/Regulatory+Cnsiderations/SAS+No.+99+Guidance Erişim Tarihi: 03.2010.
  • http://www.tuik.gov.tr Erişim Tarihi:10.05.2010.
Toplam 37 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Öcal Usta Bu kişi benim

Tuğba Uçma Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Mayıs 2011
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2011 Sayı: 34

Kaynak Göster

APA Usta, Ö., & Uçma, T. (2011). HİLELİ FİNANSAL RAPORLAMADA BAĞIMSIZ DENETÇİ SORUMLULUĞUNUN BELİRLENMESİNE YÖNELİK YAPISAL EŞİTLİK MODELİ UYGULAMASI. Muhasebe Ve Denetime Bakış(34), 13-38.