Corresponding Author: Febriyanti
Lidya Sampepolan
Email: [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
The term fraud has long been known and recognized
among auditors. Fraud is a deliberate and planned behavior from a position of
trust and power (Kuntadi, 2017) . Based on a survey conducted by ACFE (Association of
Certified Fraud Examiners) in 2019, it shows that every organization throughout
the world experiences losses due to fraud amounting to 5% of the organization's
income. In 2022, ACFE Indonesia's Fraud Risk Survey shows that almost 80% of
organizations in Indonesia will be victims of fraud. Apart from that, ACFE
Indonesia also found that 39% of Indonesian organizations experienced an
increase in fraud due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Almost every community affair
cannot be free from the trap of fraudulent practices. Of the many problems in
Indonesia, fraud is a social disease that has spread in every aspect of
society's life.
Efforts to
eradicate fraud in Indonesia have become the agenda of every government regime,
various regulations have been issued and various anti-corruption bodies have
been formed to prevent and detect fraud. Based on the search results, it is
known that there were several fraud scandals that occurred in Indonesia during
2017-2023, such as the PT Pension Fund corruption case. Pertamina during
2014-2015 which caused losses to the state of IDR 599.29 billion (BPK report,
2017), the case of manipulation of PT Garuda Indonesia's financial reports in
2018, the case of PT Waskita Karya during 2009-2015 which caused losses to the
state of IDR 202 billion (KPK report, in 2020), the PT Asuransi Jiwasraya case
during 2013-2018 which cost the state Rp. 16.8 trillion (BPK report, 2020), the
PT Asabri case during 2012-2019 which cost the state Rp. 22.778 trillion (BPK
report, 2021) and the case of the Artemis Avanti Satellite Procurement at the
Ministry of Defense during 2013-2016 which cost the state IDR 453 billion (BPKP
Report, 2023). Fraud scandals that occur within the government and the world of
State-Owned Enterprises (BUMN) have raised awareness that fraud continues to
increase and is widespread in Indonesia.
Previous
research explains that audits are carried out to provide confidence that
financial reports are free from the risk of misstatement, where the scandals
that occur are evidence of the auditor or examiner's failure to detect fraud (Dwita, 2019) . The role of the auditor is very important in
analyzing fraud. If the auditor carries out his audit duties properly,
including detecting fraud, these scandals can be detected quickly.
Auditors are
responsible for designing adequate audit procedures to detect fraud and obtain
sufficient evidence when the audit is carried out (Hamshari et al., 2021)
. The auditor's ability to detect fraud is the process
by which the auditor finds violations that are intentionally committed and
result in errors in financial reports (Suryandari &
Yuesti, 2017) . The ability to detect fraud is a necessity that must
be possessed by auditors because it shows the quality possessed by the auditor.
In the Auditing Standards it is explained that there are several requirements
that must be present in an auditor when carrying out audit duties, namely
expertise in auditing, independence and professional skills. This is supported
by previous research which argues that fraud detection carried out by auditors
requires professional skepticism, competence and independence (Digdowiseiso et al.,
2022) . Other research states that individual auditor
factors consist of competence, independence, ethics and audit experience (Arrizqy &
Suryarini, 2016) . This research examines three individual auditor
factors consisting of professional skepticism, independence and auditor
expertise.
Professional
skepticism is not only one of the fundamental requirements that an auditor must
have but is also an important element to improve high-quality audits (Ta et al., 2022) . SPKN (State Financial Audit Standards) published by
the BPK (Financial Audit Agency) in 2017 revealed that professional skepticism is
related to questioning mind behavior and carrying out critical evaluation of
audit evidence. The reason for the high risk of audit failure in finding fraud
is because auditors have low professional skepticism so that auditors cannot
consider fraud in audits (Suryandari &
Yuesti, 2017) . According to previous research, one example of the
failure of external auditors in finding fraud is the case of fraudulent
manipulation of PT's financial statements. Sun Prima Nusantara, auditors do not
apply the principle of professional skepticism in carrying out audits (Koroy, 2008) . Therefore, examiners are needed who have expertise
and high professional skepticism to detect fraud. The results of research
conducted (Idawati, 2019) show that professional skepticism has an influence on
fraud detection, but this is contradictory to the results found by previous
research which shows that professional skepticism has no effect on fraud
detection (Ningtyas et al., 2018)
.
Independence is an
attitude where auditors must be able to act objectively and not be influenced
by conflicts of interest that can affect their professional responsibilities (Achmad, 2012) . According to (Fakhruddin et al.,
2017) , an examiner who has high independence is difficult
to be influenced and controlled by certain parties when analyzing the evidence
found during the examination. (Hamilah, 2019) believes that independence has an influence on fraud
detection, where examiners who have high independence can reveal fraud that
occurs. This is contradictory to (Sukma & Paramitha,
2020) who believes that auditor independence has no
influence on the auditor's ability to discover fraud.
Auditor expertise is related to individual experience,
education, professional examinations which produce proficiency combined with
the auditor's skills in carrying out specific audits (Wirasari et al., 2019)
. In carrying out audit assignments, examiners are
required to have skills or competence in the fields of accounting and auditing
so that they can provide appropriate judgment. (IkbaL et al., 2020) argue that fraud can be detected by expert and
experienced auditors, especially those who have special certification in the
field of fraud. Based on research results from (Amrih et al., 2018) it was
found that auditor expertise influences fraud detection. However, (Fakhruddin et al.,
2017) stated that auditor expertise does not have a
significant influence on fraud detection.
Based on survey
results by ACFE Indonesia, it shows that the whistleblower system method is
still considered an effective fraud prevention medium for sources with a
percentage of 22.6%, followed by stability in implementing policies against
fraud in organizations at 13.8%. In 2019, a survey conducted by ACFE Indonesia
showed that the source of fraud disclosure came from information from company
employees with a percentage of 50.2%, anonymous parties 23.4%, customers 6.7%,
share owners 3.4% and others 16.3%. Furthermore, in 2022, the ACFE Indonesia
Fraud Risk Survey reported that 62% of fraud was detected through the
Whistleblowing system (WBS). This shows that the whistleblowing system plays an
important role in detecting fraud in an organization.
Whistleblowing
to detect and reveal errors in an organization (Astika &
Dwirandra, 2017) . The effectiveness of whistleblowing in finding fraud
in financial reports is not only trusted by accountants and policy makers on
the American continent but also on other continents (Astika &
Dwirandra, 2017) . Guidelines for the whistleblowing system in
Indonesia were established by the KNKG (National Commission on Governance
Policy) in 2008 in order to improve the implementation of governance in
companies in Indonesia. Other research concludes that whistleblowing has no
effect on auditors' skills in finding fraud (Sari, 2019) . Meanwhile, (Widyawati et al.,
2019) found that whistle blowing has an influence on fraud
prevention. The results of previous research found that whistleblowing
strengthens the influence of professional skepticism on fraud detection.
Because previous
research has produced mixed results, research into the influence of individual auditor
factors in the form of professional skepticism, independence and auditor
expertise on the auditor's ability to detect fraud needs to be carried out to
see whether the factors mentioned above have a consistent influence. The
difference between this research and previous research is the addition of
auditor independence and expertise as independent variables, whereas previous
research only tested the moderating effect of whistleblowing on the
relationship between skepticism and fraud detection (Permana &
Eftarina, 2020) . Apart from that, this research chose BPK RI and
State Financial Auditorate (AKN) I as the research object.
Based on the background above, the aim of this
research is to determine and analyze the influence of individual auditor
factors on the auditor's ability to detect fraud with whistleblowing as a
moderating variable.
METHOD
Research Design
This research uses
quantitative methods by conducting hypothesis testing. The aim of this research
is to determine the influence of professional skepticism, independence and
auditor expertise on fraud detection with whistleblowing as a moderating
variable. The
respondents in this study were young expert examiners and the first expert
examiners at AKN I BPK RI. The population in this study were young expert
examiners and the first expert examiners at BPK RI.
Variables and Measurements
This research uses independent variables (free), dependent variables (bound) and
moderating variables. Independent
variables or independent variables are variables that influence the dependent
variable. Meanwhile, the dependent variable or dependent variable is a variable
that is influenced by the independent variable. The independent variables in
this research are professional skepticism (X 1 ), independence (X 2
), and auditor expertise (X 3 ). Meanwhile, the dependent
variable used in this research is fraud
detection (Y). The moderating variable is a variable that can strengthen or
weaken the influence of the independent variable on the dependent variable (Ulfa, 2021) . The moderating variable used is whistleblowing (Z). The variables of professional skepticism,
independence, auditor expertise, fraud
detection and whistleblowing are
measured in the form of a questionnaire using an ordinal scale.
The
variable measurements used in this research are primary data through the
distribution of questionnaires.
Table
1. Measurement of Research Variables
|
Variable
|
Indicator
|
Scale
|
|
Professional Skepticism
Yanti and Herlin (2019)
|
1.
Audit evidence testing
2.
Understanding audit evidence
3.
Initiative for skepticism
|
Ordinal
|
|
Independence
Efendy (2010) in Perdany and Suranta
(2013)
|
1.
Personal Disorders
2.
External Disturbances
|
Ordinal
|
|
Auditor Skills
Efendy (2010) in Perdany and Suranta
(2013)
|
1.
Mastery of Accounting and
Auditing Standards
2.
Insights into Government
3.
Skill Improvement
|
Ordinal
|
|
Fraud Detection
Yanti and Herlin (2019)
|
1.
Financial Statement Fraud
2.
Misuse of assets
3.
Corruption
|
Ordinal
|
|
Whistleblowing
KNKG (2008)
|
1.
Structural Aspects
2.
Operational Aspects
3.
Maintenance Aspects
|
Ordinal
|
Hypothesis Testing
Model
�����������
After the validity test and classical assumption test were made,
an MRA test was carried out to determine the influence of individual auditor
factors on the auditor's ability to detect fraud
by including whistleblowing as a
moderating variable.
The MRA equation can
be seen in the following regression equation model (1):
Information:
DF ����� ������������� =
fraud detection
Skept ����������������������� = professional skepticism
Indep ����������������������� = independence
Compt ������������ = auditor expertise
α ������� ������������� = constant
β 1- β 7 ����������������������� = regression coefficient of each independent variable
WBS � ������������� = whistleblowing
e �������� ������������� = standard error
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Description of Research Data
Data
collection in this research was carried out for approximately four weeks with
the data collection technique used in this research, namely through a
questionnaire distributed online using Google
Form . Respondents
in this research were First Examiners and Junior Examiners at BPK RI. The
selection test in this research was carried out using a convenience sampling method to facilitate access to respondents
due to the Covid-19 pandemic . Direct sampling collects data from sampling units
found using the following criteria:
1. Auditor with the position of
First Examiner and Junior Examiner at AKN I BPK RI;
2.
The
auditor who carries out the inspection and is willing to fill out the
questionnaire.
The
number of examiners who hold the positions of First Examiner and Junior
Examiner at AKN I is 207 people. In accordance with the sample determination
developed by Roscoe in Sugiyono (2020) who recommends the sample size that can
be used in research that uses multiple
regression analysis , the number of sample members must be at least 10
times the number of variables in the research. Due to this, the minimum number
of samples in this study was 50 samples. The total number of questionnaires
received and filled out on Google Form was
157 questionnaires with details can be seen in table 2.
Table 2. Characteristics
of Respondents
|
Characteristics
|
Description
|
Frequency
|
Percentage
|
|
Gender
|
Man
|
103
|
65.61%
|
|
Woman
|
54
|
34.39%
|
|
Total
|
157
|
100.00%
|
|
Age
|
21-30 years
old
|
16
|
10.19%
|
|
31-40 years
old
|
86
|
54.78%
|
|
41-50 years
old
|
45
|
28.66%
|
|
>51
years
|
10
|
6.37%
|
|
Total
|
157
|
100.00%
|
|
Length of
work
|
<5 years
|
5
|
3.18%
|
|
5-10 years
|
32
|
20.38%
|
|
10-15 years
|
80
|
50.96%
|
|
>15
years
|
40
|
25.48%
|
|
Total
|
157
|
100.00%
|
|
Education
|
D4/S1
|
85
|
54.14%
|
|
S2
|
71
|
45.22%
|
|
S3
|
1
|
0.64%
|
|
Total
|
157
|
100.00%
|
|
Examiner's
Role
|
First
Examiner
|
53
|
33.76%
|
|
Young
Examiner
|
104
|
66.24%
|
|
Total
|
157
|
100.00%
|
Source:
Research Questionnaire, data
processed in 2023
Based on table 2, the
characteristics of respondents observed in this study are gender, age, length
of work, education, and examiner role. The results of the frequency
distribution of each characteristic are that the number of male respondents is
more than female, namely 103 people (65.61%), the age of most respondents is in
the range of 31-40 years, namely 86 people (54.78%), the respondents' work
experience 80 people had the most work experience of 10-15 years (50.96%), the
majority of respondents' education was at the D4/S1 level, namely 85 people
(54.14%), and there were more respondents with junior examiner positions than
inspectors. first, namely 104 people (66.24%).
Descriptive statistics
Descriptive statistics
provide an overview or description of data so that the information is clearer
and easier to understand, as seen from the average ( mean ), median, standard deviation, maximum value and minimum value
(Ghozali & Latan,
2015) . In this research, descriptive statistics will
explain the description of the independent, moderating and dependent variables.
The professional
skepticism variable was measured using 12 items with complete statements filled
in by 157 respondents. The results of the descriptive analysis of the
professional skepticism variable show that the highest standard deviation value
for statement number 11 is 0.874, meaning that the distribution of respondents'
answers varies greatly, starting from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). Meanwhile, the lowest standard
deviation is in statement number 5, which is 0.532, meaning that the
distribution of respondents' answers tends to be less varied, starting from 3
to 5. The average answer to statement number 11 is below 4, namely 3.533 for
the statement "I rarely accept other people's explanations without
thinking." Furthermore.
The independence
variable was measured using 6 items with complete statements filled in by 157
respondents. The results of the descriptive analysis of the independence
variable show that the highest standard deviation value in statement number 5
is 0.618, meaning that the distribution of respondents' answers varies greatly,
starting from 2 (lowest) to 5 (highest). Meanwhile, the lowest standard deviation is in statement
number 6, valued at 0.528, meaning that the distribution of respondents'
answers tends to be less varied, starting from 3 to 5. The average respondent's
answer is above 4, this shows that BPK auditors state that independence is a
basic thing needed in inspection.
The auditor expertise
variable uses 6 indicators with complete statements filled in by 157
respondents. The results of the descriptive analysis of the auditor skill
variable show that the highest standard deviation value for statement number 1
is 0.751, meaning that the distribution of respondents' answers varies greatly,
starting from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). Meanwhile, the lowest standard deviation is in
statement number 5, worth 0.531, meaning that the distribution of respondents'
answers tends to be less varied, starting from 3 to 5. The average answer to
statement number 1 is below 4, namely 3.99 for the statement "In college
(formal education). ) I gained very useful knowledge in the audit process. This
is because 25 respondents or 15% said they strongly disagree to neutral.
Whistleblowing variable was measured using 11
indicators with complete statements filled in by 157 respondents. The results
of the descriptive analysis of the professional skepticism variable show that
the highest standard deviation value for statement number 10 is 0.917, meaning
that the distribution of respondents' answers varies greatly, starting from 2
(lowest) to 5 (highest). Meanwhile, the lowest standard deviation is in
statement number 1, which is 0.623, meaning that the distribution of
respondents' answers tends to be less varied, starting from 1 to 5. The average
answer to statement number 10 is below 4, namely 3.66 for the statement
"there is communication between the office and employees regarding the results
of implementing the whistleblowing system".
fraud detection
variable was measured using 12 indicators with complete statements filled in by
157 respondents. The results of the descriptive analysis of the professional
skepticism variable show that the highest standard deviation value for
statement number 5 is 0.815, meaning that the distribution of respondents'
answers varies greatly, starting from 2 (lowest) to 5 (highest). Meanwhile, the lowest standard
deviation is in statement number 8, which is 0.523, meaning that the
distribution of respondents' answers tends to be less varied, starting from 2
to 5. The average answer to statement number 6 is below 4, namely 3.52 for the
statement "I can detect fraud with analysis." ratio. For example, the current ratio, embezzlement of money
or cash theft can cause a decrease in the ratio calculation."
Data analysis results
Coefficient of Determination
(R2)
����������� Based on Table 3, it can be seen that the R2 value
is 0.619, indicating that the variables professional skepticism, independence,
auditor expertise contribute to fraud
detection which is moderated by whistleblowing at 61.9% while the other
38.1% comes from other variables not examined in this research.
Table 3. MRA Test Results
|
Model
|
R
|
R Square
|
Adjusted R Square
|
Std. Error of Estimate
|
R Square Change
|
|
MRA
|
0.786
|
0.619
|
0.601
|
3,588
|
0.033
|
Source: Processed data, 2023
F
Statistical Test (Simultaneous)
����������� Based
on table 4 it shows that all Ha are accepted because they have F > 4, Fcount
> Ftable and Sig. < 0.05. Based on this, the testing model can be
accepted and proceed to partial testing.
Table 4. F Test Results
|
Model
|
F count
|
F table
|
Sig.
|
|
MRA
|
34,511
|
2.07
|
,000
|
Source: Processed data, 2023
Hypothesis
Testing (Partial Test)
����������� To
measure how much influence the independent variable has on the dependent
variable which is moderated by the moderator variable, the MRA model is used.
Table 5. MRA Hypothesis Test Results
|
Description
|
Direction
|
Unstandardized
Coefficients
|
Sig.
(1-tailed)
|
Conclusion
|
|
B
|
|
Constant
|
-
|
52,367
|
|
|
|
SP
|
+
|
-1,180
|
0.490
|
H
1 is rejected
|
|
Ind
|
+
|
3,161
|
0.020
|
H
2 is accepted
|
|
KA
|
+
|
-1,097
|
0.156
|
H
3 is rejected
|
|
Whist
|
|
-1,289
|
0.021
|
|
|
SP_W
|
+
|
0.032
|
0.017
|
H
4 is rejected
|
|
Eng_W
|
+
|
-0.052
|
0.060
|
H
5 is rejected
|
|
KA_W
|
+
|
0.041
|
0.0475
|
H
6 is rejected
|
Source: Processed data, 2023
From table 5, it shows that the regression model that
can be formed is:
DF = 52,367 � 1,180 Skept + 3,161 Indep �
1,097 Compt � 1,289 Whist + 0.032 Skept _ Whist
� 0.052 Indep _
Whist + 0.041 Compt _ Whist (2)
Hypothesis testing results are based on the regression
coefficient and sig. (1-tailed) is as
follows.
The influence of professional skepticism (X1) on the
auditor's ability to detect fraud (Y).
Based on the results
of the regression model in table 4.4, it can be seen that the professional
skepticism coefficient value is 1.180 and the sig.(1-tailed) is 0.980/2 = 0.490 > 0.05. This shows that
professional skepticism has no effect on the auditor's ability to detect fraud . Thus, it can be concluded that
professional skepticism does not have a positive effect on the auditor's
ability to detect fraud , so Hypothesis 1 is rejected.
The effect of independence (X2) on the
auditor's ability to detect fraud (Y).
Based
on the results of the regression model in table 4.4, it can be seen that the
independence coefficient value is 3.161 and the sig.(1-tailed) is 0.040/2 = 0.020 < 0.05. Thus, it can be
concluded that independence has a positive and significant effect on the
auditor's ability to detect fraud ,
so that Hypothesis 2 is accepted.
The influence of auditor expertise (X3) on
the auditor's ability to detect fraud
(Y).
Based
on the results of the regression model in table 4.13, it can be seen that the
auditor skill coefficient value is 1.097 and the sig.(1-tailed) is 0.313/2 = 0.156 > 0.05. This shows that the auditor's expertise has no effect
on fraud detection . Thus, it can be
concluded that the auditor's expertise has no effect on the auditor's ability
to detect fraud, so Hypothesis 3 is rejected.
The influence of
whistleblowing (M) moderates the influence of professional skepticism (X1)
on the auditor's ability to detect fraud
(Y).
The regression
coefficient value of professional skepticism in the MRA model is �1.180 with sig. (1-tailed) of 0.49. Meanwhile, the
interaction between the professional skepticism variable and whistleblowing has a regression
coefficient of 0.032 and sig. (1-tailed) of
0.034/2 = 0.017 < 0.05. Thus, it can be concluded that whistleblowing is a moderating variable and does not strengthen the
positive influence of professional skepticism on the auditor's ability to
detect fraud so that Hypothesis 4 is rejected.
The influence of
whistleblowing (M) moderates the influence of independence (X2)
on the auditor's ability to detect fraud
(Y).
The independence
regression coefficient value in the MRA model is 3.161 with a sig.(1-tailed) of 0.02. Meanwhile, the interaction between the
independence variable and whistleblowing has
a regression coefficient value of -0.052 with a sig.(1-tailed) of 0.120/2 = 0.060 > 0.05. Thus, it can be
concluded that whistleblowing is not
a moderating variable and does not strengthen the positive influence of
independence on the auditor's ability to detect fraud so that Hypothesis 5
is rejected.
The influence of whistleblowing
(M) moderates the influence of auditor expertise (X3) on
the auditor's ability to detect fraud (Y).
The regression
coefficient value of auditor expertise on MRA is -1.097 with a sig.(1-tailed) of 0.156. Meanwhile,
the interaction between the auditor skill variable and whistleblowing has a coefficient value of 0.041 with a sig. (1-tailed) of 0.095/2 = 0.0475
< 0.05. Thus, it can be concluded that whistleblowing
is a moderating variable and does not strengthen the positive influence of
auditor expertise on the auditor's ability to detect fraud so that Hypothesis 6 is rejected.
Research Discussion
Professional skepticism (X1) has no positive effect on
the auditor's ability to detect fraud (Y).
Based on the test results, it is
known that H 1 is rejected, namely professional skepticism has no
positive effect on the auditor's ability to detect fraud. This shows that the professional skepticism possessed by BPK
auditors does not have a positive influence on the auditor's ability to detect fraud. Professional skepticism is an
individual auditor factor that is related to logical reasoning and critical
attitudes that emerge from within the auditor. In attribution theory, it is
explained that professional skepticism is one of the internal attribution factors
that influences auditor behavior. Professional skepticism triggers auditors to
collect adequate evidence and will not easily believe the information provided
by the auditee as a basis for
detecting fraud . BPK auditors are
required to carry out inspections professionally and always collect all audit
evidence completely. The presence or absence of professional skepticism has no
influence on the BPK auditor's ability to detect fraud. In this case, BPK auditors are responsible for always
carrying out inspections carefully and carefully in accordance with inspection
standards.
The results of this research are
supported by previous research conducted (Pramawastika
& Primasari, 2023) which stated that professional
skepticism has no effect on the auditor's ability to detect fraud. Auditors try to fulfill their
responsibilities as independent auditors, so that auditors tend to carry out
audit tasks in accordance with audit standards rather than using professional
skepticism to detect fraud (La Ode et al.,
2020) .
Independence (X2)
has a positive effect on the auditor's ability to detect fraud (Y).
Based on the test results, it is
known that H2 is accepted, namely that independence has a positive
effect on the auditor's ability to detect fraud.
This shows that when the independence of BPK examiners is high, their ability
to detect fraud will increase.
Independence is a basic value that must be adhered to by all BPK examiners.
Auditors with high independence will provide objective assessments in
accordance with the findings and facts in the field. In accordance with
cognitive theory, it is explained that cognitive abilities are influenced by
motivation that arises from within humans (Zagoto,
2019) . Independence is one of the
factors that motivates auditors to carry out audits objectively and free from
the influence of other parties, making it easier for auditors to assess signs
of fraud.
The results of this research are
in line and consistent with previous research conducted by (Hamilah,
2019) , (Muntasir
& Maryasih, 2021) and (Putra
et al., 2021) which states that independence
has a positive effect on the auditor's ability to detect fraud . (Pramawastika
& Primasari, 2023) revealed that the more independent an auditor is, the
more capable he will be of detecting fraud.
Auditor expertise (X3) does not
have a positive effect on the auditor's ability to detect fraud (Y).
Based on the test results, it is
known that H 3 is rejected, namely that auditor expertise does not
have a positive effect on the auditor's ability to detect fraud. This shows that the expertise of BPK RI auditors does not
affect the auditor's ability to detect fraud.
Auditor expertise is the skills and abilities possessed by an examiner in
carrying out audit tasks. Based on attribution theory, it is explained that
auditor expertise is an attribution that comes from within the auditor.
Auditors' expertise increases through education, certification, experience and
training related to audits. The auditor's expertise does not guarantee the
auditor's ability to detect fraud ,
where in practice it is known that audits are often carried out by auditors who
do not have an educational background appropriate to the assigned audit field.
One example is the inspection of building infrastructure carried out by
auditors who graduated with a Bachelor of Accounting degree who do not have
certification in the construction field. Auditors are required to always be
able to carry out audits professionally even if they do not have expertise in
the assigned audit field.
The results of this research are
in line with previous research conducted by (Prameswari
et al., 2022) and (Harahap
& Pulungan, 2019) which stated that auditor
expertise does not have a positive effect on the auditor's ability to detect fraud .
Whistleblowing (M)
does not strengthen the influence of professional skepticism (X1)
on the auditor's ability to detect fraud
(Y).
Based on the test results, it is
known that H4 is rejected, namely that whistleblowing does not strengthen the influence of professional
skepticism on the auditor's ability to detect fraud. The results of this research show that whistleblowing does not affect professional skepticism towards the
auditor's ability to detect fraud. This
means that the Whistleblowing system implemented
at BPK cannot strengthen the professional skepticism of BPK auditors in
detecting fraud. There is a
consequence of using a whistleblowing
report , namely the possibility that the report does not prove that there was
an act of fraud so that whistleblowing can
interfere with the auditor's justification in detecting fraud . Therefore, auditors avoid using whistleblowing reports as a reference for looking for signals of
fraud.
This research is not in line with
previous research which states that the
whistleblowing system moderates the influence of professional skepticism on
auditors' ability to detect fraud (Permana
& Eftarina, 2020) . The results of this research
expand research on whistleblowing as
a moderating variable where whistleblowing
weakens the influence of professional skepticism on the auditor's ability
to detect fraud.
Whistleblowing (M)
does not strengthen the influence of independence (X2) on the
auditor's ability to detect fraud (Y).
Based on the test results, it is
known that H5 is rejected, namely that whistleblowing strengthens the influence of independence on the
auditor's ability to detect fraud.
The results of this research show that whistleblowing
is not proven to strengthen the influence of independence on the auditor's
ability to detect fraud. Basically,
BPK auditors are required to be able to recognize indications of fraud in each
assignment. The presence or absence of whistleblowing
will not have an influence on fraud
detection where auditors with high independence will try to provide
objective assessments in producing quality audits. Even though there is
information from the whistleblower,
the auditor does not have independence, so fraud
cannot be disclosed according to the existing facts.
Previous research stated that whistleblowing had no effect on the
auditor's ability to detect fraud (Pratama et al.,
2019) ;
(Sari, 2019) . The results of this research expand research on whistleblowing as a moderating
variable where whistleblowing is not
proven to strengthen the influence of independence on the auditor's ability to
detect fraud .
Whistleblowing
(M) does not strengthen the influence of auditor
expertise (X3) on the auditor's ability to detect fraud (Y).
Based
on the test results, it is known that H6 is rejected, namely that whistleblowing does not strengthen the
influence of auditor expertise on the auditor's ability to detect fraud. The results of this study show
that whistleblowing weakens the
influence of auditor expertise on fraud
detection . Expertise is an internal attribution variable that can
influence auditor behavior to detect fraud, while the whistleblowing system is part of external attribution that
originates from outside the auditor. Auditors tend to rely on their expertise
rather than using information from external parties to spot fraud signals .
Previous
research found that whistleblowing moderates
the influence of auditor competence on fraud
prevention (Mutmainah, 2022) . This research revealed that the whistleblowing system is a strategy
used by banks in Central Java to prevent fraud.
The results of this research expand research on whistleblowing as a moderating variable where whistleblowing is not proven to
strengthen the influence of auditor expertise on fraud detection.
CONCLUSION
In this research, an analysis has been
carried out on the influence of professional skepticism, independence and
auditor expertise on fraud detection, with whistleblowing as a moderating
variable. Based on the research results, there are several conclusions that can
be drawn: 1) Professional Skepticism. This research finds that professional
skepticism does not have a positive influence on the auditor's ability to
detect fraud. Although professional skepticism is an important aspect of audit
practice, these results indicate that auditors are expected to adhere to
established audit standards, and professional skepticism does not significantly
affect their ability to detect fraud. 2. Independence. The research results
show that independence has a positive influence on the auditor's ability to
detect fraud. Independence is a fundamental principle in the audit profession,
and auditors who maintain their independence tend to provide a more objective
assessment of the findings and facts discovered during the audit. 3. Auditor
Skills. This research finds that auditor expertise does not have a positive
influence on fraud detection. This shows that, although expertise is an
important attribute for an auditor, BPK auditors are still able to carry out
audit duties with professionalism even though they may not have special
expertise in their assigned field. 4. Whistleblowing. Whistleblowing apparently
does not strengthen the influence of professional skepticism, independence, or
auditor expertise on their ability to detect fraud. These results indicate that
auditors tend to continue to try to carry out their duties independently
without relying too much on whistleblowing reports. Whistleblowing can also
influence the auditor's justification in some cases. This research provides
important insight into the factors that influence auditors' ability to detect
fraud, as well as the role of whistleblowing as a moderating variable. However,
the results of this study also show differences with previous research in the
literature, so it is important to continue to consider the context and
characteristics that may influence the relationship between these variables.
The practical implications of these findings can help organizations and
regulators understand the factors that influence audit quality in detecting
fraud.
REFERENCES
Achmad, B. (2012). Analysis Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi
Kualitas Hasil Pemeriksaan Audit Sektor Publik (Studi Empiris Pada Bpkp
Perwakilan Jawa Tengah). Dinamika Akuntansi Keuangan Dan Perbankan, 1(2).
Arrizqy, I. Z., & Suryarini, T. (2016). The Analysis of
Audit Quality Affected by Auditor�TM s Individual Factor and
Moderated by Pressure of Audit Time Budget. Accounting Analysis Journal,
5(3), 256�262.
Astika, I. B. P., & Dwirandra, A. (2017). on Fraud
Detection Capabilities.
Digdowiseiso, K., Subiyanto, B., & Priadi, J. I. (2022).
FAKTOR-FAKTOR YANG MEMPENGARUHI KEMAMPUAN AUDITOR DALAM MENDETEKSI KECURANGAN
(FRAUD):(Studi Empiris Pada Auditor BPK RI di Jakarta Pusat). Fair Value:
Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi Dan Keuangan, 4(6), 2621�2627.
Dwita, L. (2019). Faktor Determinan yang Mempengaruhi
Kemampuan Auditor Mendeteksi Kecurangan. Prosiding Seminar Nasional
Cendekiawan, 2�55.
Fakhruddin, F., Herwanty, R. T., & Rifa�i, A. (2017).
EFFECT OF EXPERTISE INDEPENDENCE AND PROFESSIONAL SKEPTICISM ABOUT THE ABILITY
OF INTERNAL AUDITORS TO DETECT FRAUD (EXAMINE EMPIRICALLY ON INSPECTORATE OF
BIMA REGENCY AND BIMA CITY WEST NUSA TENGGARA PROVINCE). PROCEEDING
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ECONOMICS, BUSINESS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
(ICEBIT), 1.
Ghozali, I., & Latan, H. (2015). Konsep, teknik dan
aplikasi menggunakan Program Smart PLS 3.0. Universitas Diponegoro. Semarang.
Hamilah, H. (2019). The effect of professional education,
experience and independence on the ability of internal auditors in detecting
fraud in the pharmaceutical industry company in central Jakarta. Internasional
Journal Of Ekonomics And Financial Issues (IJEFI), 9.
Hamshari, Y. M., Ali, H. Y., & Alqam, M. A. (2021). The
relationship of professional skepticism to the risks of auditing and internal
control, and the discovery of fraud and core errors in the financial statements
in Jordan. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 10(2),
105.
Harahap, R. U., & Pulungan, K. A. (2019). Pengaruh
Kompetensi, Independensi dan Profesionalisme terhadap Salah Saji Material pada
Kantor Akuntan Publik di Kota Medan. Jurnal Riset Akuntansi Dan Bisnis, 19(2),
183�199.
Idawati, W. (2019). The auditor�s ability to detect fraud:
gender, professional skepticism, and time budget pressure. 5th Annual
International Conference on Accounting Research (AICAR 2018), 14�16.
IkbaL, M., Irwansyah, I., Paminto, A., Ulfah, Y., &
Darma, D. C. (2020). Financial intelligence: Financial statement fraud in
Indonesia. Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business, 10(3).
KNKG. (2008). Pedoman Sistem Pelaporan Pelanggaran
whistleblowing.
Koroy, T. R. (2008). Pendeteksian kecurangan (fraud) laporan
keuangan oleh auditor eksternal. Jurnal Akuntansi Dan Keuangan, 10(1),
22�23.
Kuntadi, C. (2017). Sikencur (Sistem Kendali Kecurangan). Jakarta:
PT Elex Media Komputindo.
La Ode, A., Wahyuniati, H., Angela, F., & Oktri, S.
(2020). Auditor�s ability to detect fraud: Independence, audit experience,
professional skepticism, and work load. Russian Journal of Agricultural and
Socio-Economic Sciences, 11(107), 192�205.
Muntasir, M., & Maryasih, L. (2021). Pengaruh
Independensi, Pengalaman, Skeptisme Profesional Auditor Dan Kompetensi Terhadap
Kemampuan Auditor Dalam Mendeteksi Kecurangan (Studi Pada Inspektorat Aceh). Akbis:
Media Riset Akuntansi Dan Bisnis, 5(2), 138�154.
Mutmainah, I. (2022). EFFECTS OF COMPETENCE, ETHICAL
BEHAVIOR, AND WORK MOTIVATION ON PREVENTION OF FINANCIAL REPORTING FRAUD:
WHISTLEBLOWING SYSTEM AS A MODERATOR. Jurnal Akuntansi, 12(3),
201�222.
Ningtyas, I., Delamat, H., & Yuniartie, E. (2018).
Pengaruh Pengalaman, Keahlian, Dan Skeptisisme Profesional Terhadap
Pendeteksian Kecurangan (Studi Empiris Pada Bpk Ri Perwakilan Sumatera
Selatan). Akuntabilitas, 12(2), 113�124.
Perdany, A., & Suranta, S. (2013). Pengaruh Kompetensi
Dan Independensi Auditor Terhadap Kualitas Audit Investigatif Pada Kantor
Perwakilan BPK-RI Yogyakarta. Jurnal Akuntansi Dan Bisnis, 13(2).
Permana, Y., & Eftarina, M. (2020). Peran whistleblowing
system dalam memoderasi pengaruh skeptisisme professional terhadap kemampuan
auditor dalam mendeteksi kecurangan. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pakar, 2�14.
Pramawastika, E., & Primasari, N. H. (2023). Analisis
Determinan Yang Memengaruhi Kemampuan Auditor Dalam Mendeteksi Kecurangan. Akuntansiku,
2(1), 28�39.
Prameswari, A. D., Purwohedi, U., & Respati, D. K.
(2022). Factors Affecting Auditor�s Ability to Detect Fraud. Jurnal
Akuntansi, Perpajakan Dan Auditing, 3(1), 78�96.
Pratama, N. A., Sukarmanto, E., & Purnamasari, P. (2019).
Pengaruh Red Flags dan Whistleblowingsystem terhadap Kemampuan Auditor dalam
Mendeteksi Kecurangan (Fraud)(Studi Empiris pada BUMN di Kota Bandung). Prosiding
Akuntansi, 22�27.
Putra, W. E., Kusuma, I. L., & Dewi, M. W. (2021). Model
Hubungan Kompetensi, Independensi, Profesionalisme Dan Kualitas Audit Serta
Dampaknya Terhadap Kemampuan Mendeteksi Frauds. Jurnal Akuntansi Dan Pajak,
22(2).
Sari, C. N. (2019). Determinant That Effect on Fraud
Detection Capabilities by Auditors. International Journal of Business
Studies, 3(2), 78�88.
Sukma, E., & Paramitha, R. V. (2020). Pengaruh Pengalaman
Auditor, Independensi, dan Keahlian Profesional Terhadap Kemampuan Auditor
Mendeteksi Kecurangan Laporan Keuangan dengan Skeptisme Profesional sebagai
Variabel Moderasi. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pakar, 2�36.
Suryandari, N. N. A., & Yuesti, A. (2017). Professional
scepticism and auditors ability to detect fraud based on workload and
characteristics of auditors. Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ), 5(9),
109�115.
Ta, T. T., Doan, T. N., Pham, D. C., & Tran, H. N.
(2022). Factors affecting the professional skepticism of independent auditors
in Viet Nam. Cogent Business & Management, 9(1), 2059043.
Ulfa, R. (2021). Variabel Penelitian Dalam Penelitian
Pendidikan. Al-Fathonah, 1(1), 342�351.
Widyawati, A., Sujana, E., & Yuniarta, A. (2019).
Pengaruh Kompetensi Sumber Daya Manusia, Whistleblowing System, dan Sistem
Pengendalian Internal Terhadap Pencegahan Fraud Dalam Pengelolaan Dana BUMDES
(Studi Empiris Pada Badan Usaha Milik Desa di Kabupaten Buleleng). JIMAT
(Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa Akuntansi) Undiksha, 10(3), 368�379.
Wirasari, N. N. I., Sunarsih, N. M., & Dewi, N. P. S.
(2019). Pengaruh skeptisisme profesional auditor, etika profesi, keahlian audit
dan komitmen profesional auditor terhadap ketepatan pemberian opini oleh
auditor pada kantor akuntan publik di Bali. Juara: Jurnal Riset Akuntansi,
9(1).
Yanti, R. T., & Herlin, H. (2019). ANALISIS PENGALAMAN,
SKEPTISISME PROFESIONAL AUDITOR TERHADAP KEMAMPUAN MENDETEKSI FRAUD. JAZ:Jurnal
Akuntansi Unihaz, 2(2), 36. https://doi.org/10.32663/jaz.v2i2.990
Zagoto, S. F. L. (2019). Efikasi diri dalam proses
pembelajaran. Jurnal Review Pendidikan Dan Pengajaran (JRPP), 2(2),
386�391.
