Data mining journal entries for fraud detection: An exploratory study

International Journal of Accounting Information Systems

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 157-181

  Debreceny, R S ^a   Gray, G L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII   (United States)

^b CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Accounting information systems; Auditing; Data mining; Fraud; Journal entries; XBRL GL

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956787809     PISSN: 14670895     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.accinf.2010.08.001     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Arya A., Fellingham J., Schroeder D.A. Accounting information, aggregation, and discriminant analysis. Manage Sci 2000, 46(6):790-806.
2. ASB Statement on Auditing Standards no. 99 consideration of fraud in a financial statement audit 2003, 26. Auditing Standards Board, American Institute of CPAs, New York.
3. ASB Statement on Auditing Standards no. 109 understanding the entity and its environment and assessing the risks of material misstatement 2006, 46. Auditing Standards Board, American Institute of CPAs, New York.
4. ASB Statement on Auditing Standards no. 110 performing audit procedures in response to assessed risks and evaiuating the audit evidence obtained 2006, 26. Auditing Standards Board, American Institute of CPAs, New York.
5. ASB Exposure draft - proposed statement on auditing standards consideration of fraud in a financial statement audit (redrafted) 2009, Auditing Standards Board, American Institute of CPAs, New York.
6. Benford F. The law of anomalous numbers. Proc Am Philos Soc 1938, 78:551-572.
7. Beresford, D. R., N. d. Katzenbach, and C. B. Rogers. 2003. Report of investigation by the Special Investigative Committee of the Board of Directors of WorldCom, Inc. Clinton, Miss.: WorldCom, Inc., 345.
8. CAQ Practice aid for testing journal entries and other adjustments pursuant to AU section316 2008, Center for Audit Quality, Washington, DC.
9. Cheng M.-Y., Hall P. Calibrating the excess mass and dip tests of modality. J R Stat Soc Ser B 1998, 60(3):579-589.
10. Cleary R., Thibodeau J.C. Applying digital analysis using Benford's Law to detect fraud: the dangers of type I errors. Auditing 2005, 24(1):77-81.
11. Curtis M.B., Jenkins J.G., Bedard J.C., Deis D.R. Auditors' training and proficiency in information systems: a research synthesis. J Inf Syst 2009, 23(1):79-96.
12. DeVries D.D., Kiger J.E. Journal entries and adjustments - your biggest fraud danger. J Corporate Accounting Finance 2004, 15(4):57-62.
13. Diekmann A. Not the first digit! Using Benford's Law to detect fraudulent scientific data. J Appl Stat 2007, 34(3):321-329.
14. Geyer C.L., Williamson P.P. Detecting fraud in data sets using Benford's Law. Commun Stat Simul Comput 2004, 33(1):229-246.
15. Guan L., He D., Yang D. Auditing, integral approach to quarterly reporting, and cosmetic earnings management. Manage Auditing J 2006, 21(6):569-581.
16. Hales D.N., Sridharan V., Radhakrishnan A., Chakravorty S.S., Siha S.M. Testing the accuracy of employee-reported data: an inexpensive alternative approach to traditional methods. Eur J Oper Res 2008, 189(3):583-593.
17. Hartigan J.A., Hartigan P.M. The dip test of unimodality. Ann Stat 1985, 13(1):70-84.
18. Hill T. A statistical derivation of the significant-digit law. Stat Sci 1995, 10(4):354-363.
19. IAASB International standard on auditing 240 - the auditor's responsibility relating to fraud in an audit of financial statements. Handbook of international standards on auditing and quality control 2009, 163-206. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, International Federation of Accountants, New York.
20. IAASB International standard on auditing 330 - the auditor's responses to assessed risks. Handbook of international standards on auditing and quality control 2009, 331-354. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, International Federation of Accountants, New York.
21. Ijiri Y. Theory of accounting measurement 1975, American Accounting Association, Sarasota, Fla.
22. Ijiri Y., Kelly E. Multidimensional accounting and distributed databases: their implications for organizations and society. Acc Organ Soc 1980, 5(1):115-123.
23. Janvrin D., Bierstaker J., Lowe D.J. An investigation of factors influencing the use of computer-related audit procedures. J Inf Syst 2009, 23(1):97-118.
24. Janvrin D., Morrison J. Using a structured design approach to reduce risks in end user spreadsheet development. Inf Manage 2000, 37(1):1.
25. Leech S.A. The theory and development of a matrix-based accounting system. Accounting Bus Res 1986, 16(64):327-341.
26. Ley E. On the peculiar distribution of the U.S. stock indexes' digits. Am Stat 1996, 50:311-313.
27. Mattessich R. Accounting and analytical methods 1964, Richard D Irwin, Homewood, Ill.
28. Mattessich R. Accounting research and researchers of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century: an international survey of authors, ideas and publications. Accounting Bus Financial Hist 2003, 13(2):125-170.
29. Nigrini M.J. Digital analysis using Benford's Law: tests statistics for auditors 2000, Global Audit Publications, Vancouver. Second ed.
30. Nigrini M.J., Mittermaier L.J. The use of Benford's Law as an aid in analytical procedures. Auditing A J Pract Theory 1997, 16(2):52-67.
31. Panko R.R. Spreadsheets and Sarbanes-Oxley: regulations, risks, and control frameworks. Commun AIS 2006, 2006(17):2-50.
32. PCAOB AU section316-consideration of fraud in a financial statement audit [URL]. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board [cited 20 October 2006]. Available from http://pcaob.org/standards/interim_standards/auditing_standards/index_au.asp?series=300§ion=300.
33. PCAOB Proposed auditing standards related to the auditor's assessment of and response to risk and conforming amendments to PCAOB standards. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 21 October [cited 10 June 2009]. Available from http://www.pcaobus.org/Rules/Docket_026/2008-10-21_Release_No_2008-006.pdf.
34. POB Report and recommendations of the panel on audit effectiveness 2000, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Public Oversight Board, New York.
35. PricewaterhouseCoopers The use of spreadsheets: considerations for section404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2004, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, New York, NY, 9.
36. Sampson W.C., Olan M.J. An innovation in auditing: matrix summaries of journal entries. Abacus 1992, 28(2):133-141.
37. Skousen C.J., Guan L., Wetzel T.S. Anomalies and unusual patterns in reported earnings: Japanese managers round earnings. J Int Financial Manage Accounting 2004, 15(3):212-234.
38. Tackett J.A. Digital analysis: a better way to detect fraud. J Corporate Accounting Finance 2007, 18(4):27-36.
39. Wallace W. Reporting practices: potential lessons from Cendant Corporation. Eur Manage J 2000, 18(3):328-333.
40. Weld L.G., Bergevin P.M., Magrath L. Anatomy of a financial fraud: a forensic examination of HealthSouth. CPA J 2004, 44-49. (October).
41. Willkie Farr Gallagher, Arthur Andersen L.L.P. Report to the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of Cendant Corporation, August 24 [cited 1 September 2007]. Available from http://www.secinfo.com/dsvrn.71H3.htm.
42. Woods L. In confidence [Email], 26 April [cited 10 May 2007]. Available from http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/worldcom/worldcom062602cstemail.pdf.