Auditors' responsibility for fraud detection: New wine in old bottles?

Abstract

We observe a historical trend that standard setters often resort to issuing additional auditing standards as a response to restore public trust after widely publicized fraud. Despite the standard setters’ intention, auditors are generally poor at fraud detection. Auditors are not fraud examiners. We contend the failure of auditors to detect fraud is attributable to the differences in skill sets and task objectives between financial statement audits and fraud auditing. Our paper provides a brief overview of the changes in auditors’ responsibility for fraud detection over the years. We highlight the differences between auditors and forensic specialists based on prior literature and an expert panel. Without proper and adequate forensic training, expecting auditors to detect fraud is similar to pouring new wine into old bottles. We conclude by identifying changes in the current audit model and research opportunities that can be used to improve auditors’ fraud detection performances.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 29 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.