PENGARUH PERTUKARAN PENDAPAT DAN FAKTOR RISIKO KECURANGAN TERHADAP PENDETEKSIAN KECURANGAN

Suryoratri, Gista Elrisa (2012) PENGARUH PERTUKARAN PENDAPAT DAN FAKTOR RISIKO KECURANGAN TERHADAP PENDETEKSIAN KECURANGAN. S1 thesis, Universitas Negeri Jakarta.

Preview	Text Cover.pdf Download (1MB) | Preview
Preview	Text Table_Of_Content.pdf Download (100kB) | Preview
Preview	Text Chapter_1.pdf Download (138kB) | Preview
	Text Chapter_2.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Download (504kB) | Request a copy
Preview	Text Chapter_3.pdf Download (143kB) | Preview
	Text Chapter_4.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Download (411kB) | Request a copy
Preview	Text Chapter_5.pdf Download (126kB) | Preview
Preview	Text Bibliography.pdf Download (99kB) | Preview

Abstract

Gista Elrisa Suryoratri, 2011; The Effect of Brainstorming and Fraud Risk Factors on Fraud Detection. This research is resembled to measure the effect of Audit Brainstorming, as SAS No. 90 required, and Fraud Risk Factors to Fraud Detection. SAS No. 90 requires the needs for audit team to exchange idea as known as Brainstorming. The discussion needs to conclude the auditors’ perspectives about; how and where the clients’ financial statements look suspicious; how to determine by any material misstatements due to fraud; how management conceal and perpetrate fraud; and how the clients’ assets was misappropriate. Indonesian SAS (Pernyataan Standar Audit/ PSA) No. 70 told the same instruction. But indeed, it didn’t tell how the discussion was supposed to be held. Fraud Risk Factors defined as determinant of Triangle Fraud which stimulate fraudster conducting fraud. The prior researches were pointed the relation between Brainstorming and Fraud Risk Factors to fraud risk assessment, but Hoffman and Zimbelman (2006) found that developing effective fraud detection procedures may be a more cognitively demanding task than assessing fraud risk. The statistic result of this research approves that both Brainstorming and Fraud Risk Factors are affecting Fraud Detection. The questioner tabulation is told the same. Even though shows the complexity about researcher first estimation with the result and consistency of the answer. It might be happen because the number of respondent is too small.

Actions (login required)

View Item