The influence of fraud hexagon on indication fraud
##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##
Abstract
This research aims to obtain test results from the influence of fraud hexagon (pressure, opportunity, rationalization, capability, arrogance and collusion) on indications of fraud. This research is a type of quantitative research and the resources used are primary data by distributing questionnaires. This research was conducted at the Local Government Organization (OPD) registered on the website of the Central Bengkulu district government. The questionnaire was distributed to employees working in the asset sector, budget field, and treasury and accounting fields as well as the general section, resulting in 65 respondents. This study used multiple linear regression analysis techniques, t tests, and coefficients of determination which were processed using the SPSS application. The results showed that the variables pressure, opportunity, capability had a positive effect on the indication of fraud. While the variables of rationalization, arrogance, and collusion do not affect the indications of fraud.
##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##
References
Aghghaleh, S. F., Iskandar, T. M., & Mohamed, Z. M. (2014). Fraud Risk Factors of Fraud Triangle and the Likelihood of Fraud Occurrence : Evidence from. 6(1), 1–7.
Albrecht, C., Kranacher, M., & Albrecht, S. (n.d.). Asset Misappropriation Research White Paper for the Institute for Fraud Prevention. 1–22.
Amrizal. (2015). Pencegahan Dan Pendeteksian Kecurangan. Bpkp RI, 5(Internal Audit), 1–17.
Arens, Alvin. A, Randal J. Elder, Mark S. Beasley, dan A. A. J. (2012). Jasa Audit dan Assurance Pendekatan Terpadu (Adaptasi Indonesia). Salemba empat.
Association of Certified Fraud Examiners Indonesia. (2019). Survei Fraud Indonesia 2019. Indonesia Chapter #111, 53(9), 1–76.
Christiawan, W. (2016). Jurnal Akuntansi Bisnis, Vol. XIV(28), 131–148.
Crowe, H. (2011). The Mind Behind The Fraudsters Crime : key Behavioral and Environmental Elements. Crowe Horwart LLP, 1–62. https://www.crowe.com
Hadi, S. (2006). Metodologi Penelitian Kuantitatif Untuk Akuntansi dan Keuangan. Ekonisia.
Hamdani, R., Kumalahadi, & Urumsah, D. (2017). The Classification of Corruption in Indonesia: A Behavioral Perspective. SHS Web of Conferences, 34, 10002. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20173410002
Handoko, B. L. (2021). Hexagon Fraud in Detecting Fraud Financial Statements Company Bank Indonesia. Journal Study Accounting, Volume 5.
Jannah, I. R., Vitasari, M., & Nestiadi, A. (2021). Analisis Pembelajaran IPA Berbasis Proyek di Tingkat SMP. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika, 5(3), 346. https://doi.org/10.20527/jipf.v5i3.3491
Lismawati, Rohman, A., & Chariri, A. (2017). Developing improvement of auditor’s performance model using professional skepticism and auditors’ comfort as a mediator. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8, 27–37.
Mardianto, M., & Tiono, C. (2019). ANALISIS PENGARUH FRAUD TRIANGLE DALAM MENDETEKSI KECURANGAN LAPORAN KEUANGAN. Jurnal Benefita, 1, 87. https://doi.org/10.22216/jbe.v1i1.3349
Nurkhin, A. (2018). What Determinants of Academic Fraud Behavior ? From Fraud Triangle to Fraud Pentagon Perspective. 2018, 154–167. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v3i10.3126
Octani, J., Dwiharyadi, A., & Djefris, D. (2021). Analisis Pengaruh Fraud Hexagon Terhadap Fraudulent Financial Reporting Pada Perusahaan Sektor Keuangan yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia Selama Tahun 2017-2020. Jabei, 1(1), 36–49.
Oktarigusta, L. (2017). ANALISIS FRAUD DIAMOND UNTUK MENDETEKSI TERJADINYA FINANCIAL STATEMENT FRAUD DI PERUSAHAAN (STUDI EMPIRIS PADA PERUSAHAAN MANUFAKTUR YANG TERDAFTAR DI BEI TAHUN 2012-2015). Jurnal Manajemen Dayasaing, 19, 93–108. https://doi.org/10.23917/dayasaing.v19i2.5384
Permatasari, D., & Laila, U. (2021). Deteksi Kecurangan Laporan Keuangan Dengan Analisis Fraud Diamond Di Perusahaan Manufaktur. Akuntabilitas, 15(2), 241–262. https://doi.org/10.29259/ja.v15i2.13025
Qodari, A., Fachruzzaman, F., & Coryanata, I. (2021). Pengaruh Motivasi, Tunjangan Kinerja Dan Komitmen Pimpinan Terhadap Tingkat Kecurangan Pegawai. Jurnal Fairness, 8(1), 65–88. https://doi.org/10.33369/fairness.v8i1.15196
Rae, K., & Subramaniam, N. (2008). Quality of internal control procedures: Antecedents and moderating effect on organisational justice and employee fraud. Managerial Auditing Journal, 23, 104–124. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900810839820
Rafinda, A., Pramuka, B., Dian, P., & Kusuma, P. (2013). THE TREND AND VARIATION OF INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL DISCLOSURE AT BANK INDUSTRIES IN EUROPE. Journal of Economics, Business, and Accountancy Ventura, 16, 105–118. https://doi.org/10.14414/jebav.v16i1.128
Sari, S. P., & Nugroho, N. K. (2020). Financial Statements Fraud dengan Pendekatan Vousinas Fraud Hexagon Model: Tinjauan pada Perusahaan Terbuka di Indonesia. Proceedings of 1st Annual Conference on IHTIFAZ: Islamic Economics, Finance, and Banking (ACI-IJIEFB).
Sofyani, H., & Pramita, Y. D. (2014). Otoritas Atasan, Retaliasi dan Locus of Control Sebagai Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Perilaku Manipulasi Laporan Realisasi Anggaran. Jurnal Reviu Akuntansi Dan Keuangan, 3, 427–436. https://doi.org/10.22219/jrak.v3i2.2110
Sugiyono. (2014). Metode Penelitian Pendidikan Pendekatan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D. Alfabeta.
Tuanakotta, T. M. (2010). Akuntansi Forensik dan Audit Investigatif. Salemba empat.
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
Wilopo, W. (2006). Analisis Faktor-faktor yang Berpengaruh terhadap Kecenderungan Kecurangan Akuntansi: Studi pada Perusahaan Publik dan Badan Usaha Milik Negara di Indonesia. The Indonesian Journal of Accounting Research.