Panata Bangar Hasioan Sianipar

(1)

Panata Bangar Hasioan Sianipar. Factors Influencing the Occurrence of Fraud : Employee Perceptions in the HG Business Group

Page : 71 Research.

Factors Influencing the Occurrence of Fraud : Employee Perceptions in the HG Business Group

Panata Bangar Hasioan Sianipar^1*)

1) Bhayangkara University, Greater Jakarta, Department of Accounting

1*) panata.bangar@dsn.ubharajaya.ac.id

corresponding author^*)

Received: February 6 ,2022; Accepted: June 5,2022 Published: June 30, 2022

To cite this article: Sianipar, PBH. (2022). Factors Influencing the Occurrence of Fraud : Employee Perceptions in the HG Business Group. The Accounting Journal of BINANIAGA. 7 (1) 71 - 88 doi:

10.33062/ajb.v7i1.494

Abstract: Fraud is an endless problem in the business world, a lot of research has been done to find out about fraud. This research is also to examine the factors as independent variables that affect the occurrence of fraud. The factors used are factors that exist in the general triangle theory, but for the elements of each factor it is different from several previous studies. This research was conducted in a business group that has geographically distant working areas, and the selected sample is also spread over each working area of the business group. The research method used is quantitative. In this research, it is known that the factors tested are not all significant in influencing employees to commit fraud. An interesting finding is the negative influence of the "Justification" variable on the causes of fraud, in addition to the insignificant "Opportunity" variable in influencing the occurrence of fraud. This research is expected to contribute to management in designing a supervisory model in companies whose operations are not located in one location. The implication of this research to the organization is that there are other factors other than the three factors that can influence the occurrence of fraud.

Keywords: Fraud, pressure, opportunity, justification, agency theory.

INTRODUCTION

Fraud is something that is not expected to happen by any organization. Fraud itself has existed for a long time, where everyone has the potential to do it (Kelly Fisher, 2015), where someone is driven to commit fraud, generally because they seek material benefits for themselves (Zulaikha and Hadiprajitno, 2016).

Fraud can be committed by an entity (management) as well as individuals. But the essence of fraud is conducted for personal interests, whether conducted by management, or by individuals or groups. There are several factors (conditions) around the perpetrator, which encourage them to commit fraud (Cressey, 1953; Zulaikha and Hadiprajitno, 2016). These factors (conditions) will trigger each other within a certain period of time, so that the perpetrator finally decides to commit fraud (Wells, 2002). There are several theories that explain these factors, one of which is the Fraud Triangle Theory given by Donald R. Cressey (1953) in the “Other People's Money” Bulletin.

Previous research found that the opportunity factor was the dominant factor in encouraging fraud (Maria et al 2019) as found in the fraud risk factors in the fraud triangle (Cressey, 1950). The opportunity factor arises because of lack of supervision, which is triggered by weak control. Didi and Indra (2018) reveal that a good internal control system and law enforcement are factors that have a negative influence on the tendency to fraud (Fitria and Dhini 2019), which means that if these two factors are effective, they can reduce the tendency to fraud.

The results of the ACFE-Indonesian Chapter survey in 2016 revealed that the most common types of fraud in Indonesia were corruption at 67%; next is the misuse of state or company assets/wealth, by 31%; and the smallest is financial statement fraud,

(2)

Page : 72

amounting to 2%. This survey also informs that the inventors (who knew beforehand) the majority of frauds were employees themselves, namely 47.5% and anonymous (some may also be employees) at 21.5%. The interesting thing from this survey is that 69% of the sources of information that fraud has occurred are employees, where the perpetrators of fraud are also generally employees. This data indicates that the reporting employee can be suspected of having understood what is meant by fraud, probably because they have good education and knowledge. But on the other hand someone who has education, good social status, and is respected in his environment also has the potential to commit fraud (Barrett, 2013). This motivates researchers to conduct research to find out employee perceptions of the factors that cause fraud. The research was conducted on a national-scale business group engaged in the mining, plantation, shipping, information technology, education and sports industries. Researchers try to find out employee perceptions of the main driving factors that cause employees to commit fraud.

The title chosen in this research is "Factors Affecting the Occurrence of Fraud:

Employee Perceptions in the HG Business Group".

The problem in this research is limited to employee perceptions of the three factors contained in the fraud triangle theory, namely opportunity, pressure and justification. So the problems that will be investigated in this research are:

1) The influence of the opportunity factor in influencing employees to commit fraud according to the employee's own perception.

2) The influence of the pressure factor in influencing employees to commit fraud according to the employee's own perception.

3) The influence of the justification factor in influencing employees to commit fraud according to the employee's own perception.

4) The dominant factor among the factors of opportunity, pressure and justification that influence employees to commit fraud according to employee perceptions.

LITERATURE REVIEW Agency Theory and Governance

Agency theory provides an understanding that there are 2 interrelated parties in running an organization, where these parties are the party who has the resources called the principal and the party who manages the resources of the principal is called the agent. These two parties establish a relationship by delegating the work of the principal to achieve goals to the agent. This requires good communication of information between the two parties. The information gap can occur if there is no means to distribute information between the two parties, which can lead to an information asymmetry. The information asymmetry is in the form of differences in ownership of information between parties that can provide benefits to parties that exceed more complete information.

From this agency theory, the need for supervision in the management of the organization arises to avoid conflicts between the two parties. The need for supervision, one of which is to reduce the source of conflict, namely the imbalance of information (information asymmetry) between the two parties. The concept of supervision has also developed from supervision by relying solely on meetings between the two parties to what is currently developing is the demand for good management or what is known as Good Corporate Governance (GCG).

Good corporate governance/GCG is one of the supervisory models that connects all parties involved in the organization. GCG consists of 5 principles, namely transparency (transparency), accountability), responsibility, independency, and fairness.

These five principles are a unity that must be met in order to achieve good corporate governance, where this governance will reduce conflicts between principals and agents.

The model of good corporate governance (GCG) is an alternative to reduce the risk of fraud (Nadia et al, 2018). If GCG is applied consistently by involving all elements in the entity, it will be very effective in preventing fraud (Syamsudin et al, 2017).

In each of the five principles above there is a value of control or supervision if implemented (Nadia et al, 2018). The principle of transparency provides an opportunity

(3)

Page : 73 for any party to monitor the entity; the element of accountability requires an effective internal control system in all lines of the entity; the principle of responsibility emphasizes control of the point of compliance with regulations; the principle of independence gives value to control by preventing collusion through strict segregation of duties; and the principle of fairness has supervisory value by providing discussion space for each stakeholder in providing opinions.

Internal control and supervision is one of the ways in the GCG method (KNKG, 2012), where it is known that internal control is a system that can reduce the risk of fraud (IIA, 2017). Several researchers have concluded that the concept of GCG has an important role in fraud prevention efforts, because in every principle in GCG there is a function to prevent fraud (Nadia et al, 2018; Syamsudin et al, 2017), or it can be said that the implementation of GCG is an effective tool in mitigating fraud (Zulaikha and Hadiprajitno, 2016). This shows that there is a correlation between GCG and fraud.

Theory of Planned Behavior

The Theory of Planned Behavior (TRB) is the result of the development of the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), where TRA explains that a person's behavior is shaped by two main factors, namely the attitude toward the behavior and subjective norms (Fishbein and Ajzen, 2007). 1975), and became a TRB after adding perceived behavioral control (Ajzen 1991).

Ajzen (1991) in his research stated that the factor that becomes central and influences a person's behavior is the behavioral intention of the individual to perform a behavior. While the intention itself is influenced by:

1) Attitude

2) Subjective Norm

3) Perceived Behavior Control

Pada TPB ketiga faktor diatas (sikap, norma subjektif dan persepsi control perilaku sangat ditentukan oleh keyakinan utama dari seseorang. Setiap orang memiliki berbagai keyakinan terhadap suatu perilaku, tetapi jika dihadapkan pada suatu kondisi/kejadian maka keyakinan yang timbul adalah keyakinan utama (Ajzen 1991).

Keyakinan utama tersebut dapat dibedakan menjadi:

1) Behavioral beliefs that influence attitudes toward behavior.

2) Normative beliefs that form subjective norms for a behavior.

3) Control beliefs that support or hinder their behavior.

Fraud

a. Fraud Taxonomy

The Institute of Internal Auditors defines fraud as any illegal act characterized by fraud, concealment, or breach of trust (IIA, 2019) purposeed at an interest. Fraud has many types according to the pattern of work and abuse committed (ACFE, 2016).

b. Factors Causing Fraud

Cressey (1953) has provided a hypothesis known as the Fraud Triangle Theory, where this theory says that there are 3 main factors that encourage someone to commit fraud, where if one of these factors is not present, then fraud will not occur. Kelly Fisher, 2015).

In the fraud triangle theory, it is stated that the factors driving the occurrence of fraud are as follows:

1. Pressure, is a factor that arises from outside (external) and from within (internal) the fraud perpetrators themselves. The pressure in question can be in the form of coercion or problems that exist on the perpetrator which results in a strong desire from the perpetrator to commit fraud (Fisher, 2015;

Febriani and Suryandari, 2019). The variables that will be used to measure the influence of the pressure factor in this research are variables that have the potential to cause pressure, especially financial pressure, on employees (Cressey, 1953), while these variables are:

a. Marital status

(4)

Page : 74

b. Number of dependents in the family c. Lifestyle in the work environment d. Lifestyle in the home environment e. Lifestyle in a large family environment f. Distance from home to work

g. Number of breadwinners in the family

2. Opportunity is another factor that allows fraud to occur, because if there is no opportunity then fraud will not occur. This opportunity arises if the implementation of an entity's internal control is weak (Bradley, 2015). This factor is often the first trigger for fraud (Wells, 2001; Darjoko and Nahartyo, 2017). The opportunity factor will be strengthened if the company does not have adequate corporate governance (Nadia et al, 2018). The variables that will be used to measure the effect of the opportunity factor in this research are variables that are considered to trigger the emergence of an opportunity factor for employees to commit fraud, these variables are:

a. Control environment b. Supervision from superiors c. Risk assessment

d. Reporting e. Control activities f. Transaction value g. Transaction volume

3. Justification, is the third factor, which arises to strengthen the two factors mentioned above. Justification is a "justification" for the fraudulent act for the perpetrator, so that the perpetrator thinks that his actions will not have an impact on him (Wells, 2001; Febriani and Suryandari, 2019). This justification factor can also arise because of the lack of management control, especially personnel or cultural controls (Merchant and Van der Stede, 2012). The variables that will be used to measure the effect of the justification factor in this research are the variables that encourage employees to justify themselves to commit fraud, these variables are:

a. Working period b. Position

c. Remuneration/Compensation d. Close relationship with superiors e. Gender

f. Age g. Facility

The variables that exist in each of the above factors are the development of the author himself According to experience. All of these variables will be indicators for this research. So if it is concluded further, the indicators of each of these factors are:

Table 2.1

INDICATORS OF FRAUD CAUSES

FACTORS INDICATORS

PRESSURE 1. Marital status

(5)

Page : 75

FACTORS INDICATORS

2. Number of dependents in the family 3. Lifestyle in the work environment 4. Lifestyle in the home environment 5. Lifestyle in a large family environment 6. Distance from home to work

7. Number of breadwinners in the family OPPORTUNITY 1. Control environment

2. Supervision from superiors 3. Risk assessment

4. Reporting 5. Control activities 6. Transaction value 7. Transaction volume JUSTIFICATION 1. Working period

2. Position

3. Remuneration/Compensation 4. Close relationship with superiors 5. Gender

6. Age 7. Facility

c. Fraud Risk and Management

Fraud risk is always present in every entity because fraud techniques always develop along with the development of prevention techniques. This risk must be managed properly so that it does not become a reality and cause losses to the entity.

Fraud risk management is currently conducted by these entities in conjunction with other risk management. Fraud risk exists in every line of the entity, so fraud risk management must also exist on every line. Fraud can occur in the operational department and can even occur in support departments such as the personnel department, not only in the finance and accounting departments.

Hypothesis Formulation

This research develops hypotheses from the theoretical basis taken from several existing research results. The hypotheses are as follows:

a. Pressure and the occurrence of fraud

The pressure factor which is one of the factors for the occurrence of fraud has indicators. These indicators are triggers for the emergence of pressure on

(6)

Page : 76

someone to commit fraud. The trigger is in the form of economic needs caused by rising costs of living. The increase in a person's cost of living can be caused by increasing living dependents, changing lifestyles (Wells, 2001), the nature of consumerism, the cost of working and the number of breadwinners in the family.

H1: The pressure factor will significantly influence employees to commit fraud.

b. Opportunity and occurrence of fraud

The opportunity factor is the second factor causing fraud, in this factor there are indicators for committing fraud. These indicators signal that the potential to commit fraud exists in an entity. These indicators are mostly related to control (Wells, 2001) and partly related to the existing budget/transaction (Maria et al, 2019). The indicators are the control environment, supervision from superiors, risk assessment, reporting, control activities and transactions.

H2: The opportunity factor will significantly influence employees to commit fraud.

c. Justification and occurrence of fraud

The justification factor is usually the factor that "justifies" the perpetrator to commit fraud. Generally, these factors exist because of the absence of moral values in fraud perpetrators (Bradley, 2015). The absence of moral values can trigger the loss of elements of attitudes, norms and behavior control in a person (Zulaikha and Hadiprajitno, 2016). These indicators are the length of the employee's tenure, position (position), remuneration or compensation received (Febriani and Suryandari, 2019), proximity to the leadership (Bradley, 2015), gender, age, and facilities received.

H3: The justification factor will significantly influence employees to commit fraud.

d. Pressure, opportunity, justification and the occurrence of fraud.

The three factors studied simultaneously will have a significant influence on the occurrence of fraud in employees.

H4: The factors of pressure, opportunity and justification together will significantly influence employees to commit fraud.

Framework

The framework in this research was developed from the hypotheses that were previously set. If described, the model developed in this research is as follows:

(7)

Page : 77

TEKANAN

PELUANG

JUSTIFIKASI

FRAUD

H1

H2

H3

H4

MODEL PENGEMBANGAN

RESEARCH METHODS Object of Research

This research was conducted on a community of employees of a business group that has operational areas in the provinces of Jakarta Special Capital Region, West Java, South Kalimantan and Central Kalimantan. This research is quantitative by using a questionnaire as a tool to obtain primary data. The questionnaire was distributed to 250 respondents who were selected from a population of 2,568 people. The selection of respondents is adjusted to the population group According to the respondent's work location. The sampling technique is cluster random sampling (random group samples), where the population is divided into groups According to the respondent's work location and then a per-group sample is selected according to a set percentage (Manurung, 2021).

Research Methods and Design

This research uses a descriptive method to obtain an overview of employees' perceptions of the factors that influence fraud. The data obtained from the questionnaires were processed using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 22 software to test the research hypotheses.

Variable Operation

Variable operation is a defense given to variables by giving meaning or specifying activities, or providing an operation needed to measure these variables (Nazir 2005). The operational variables are:

a. Dependent Variable

The dependent variable is a variable that is influenced by other variables (independent) or also called the dependent variable (Manurung, 2021), where in this research the dependent variable is Fraud (Y).

b. Independent Variable

The independent variable is the independent variable that affects changes in the dependent variable (Manurung, 2021). In this research the independent variables are:

Pressure (X1), Opportunity (X2), and Justification (X3).

(8)

Page : 78

Data Collecting Method a. Population

The population of this research is employees who work in a national business group with operational areas in Jakarta Special Capital Region, West Java, South Kalimantan and Central Kalimantan. This population belongs to the type of finite population, namely a population whose number of individuals is known for sure (Manurung, 2021). The number of employees of the business group as of January 31, 2018 was around 2,568 people (all levels), spread over the 4 provinces.

b. Sample

The number of respondents as many as 250 people as a sample of the population that comes from the population of employees who are in Jakarta, West Java, South Kalimantan and Central Kalimantan. The sampling technique used is proportional cluster random sampling.

The number of samples by group (cluster) is adjusted to the total sample, resulting in the details shown in table 3.1.

Table. 3.1

RESEARCH POPULATION AND SAMPLE

GROUP POPULATION PROPORTION SAMPLE

JR (Jakarta) 258 10% 25

JB (West Java) 86 3% 10

KS (South Kalimantan) 1,641 64% 160

KT (Central Kalimantan) 583 23% 55

Total 2,568 100% 250

c. Respondent

Respondents are samples selected from 4 groups (clusters) of work areas that have been determined, and were selected randomly by using the respondent's serial number lottery. Adjustment of the number of respondents in the group is done with the consideration that certain groups have more access to committing fraud so that a larger percentage of the sample is needed than the population.

d. Questionnaire

The primary data collection media in this research used a questionnaire instrument. Questionnaires will be distributed to respondents in 2 (two) ways, namely face-to-face and via e-mail respondents. Measurements on indicators or research instruments use a Likert scale, as stated (Manurung, 2021) that the Likert scale can be used to measure (the level of) attitudes, opinions, and perceptions of a person about a certain object or phenomenon.

(9)

Page : 79 e. Data Processing

Data obtained from questionnaires answered by respondents. Data processing in this research is inferential analysis to test the research hypothesis. The hypothesis was tested using the statistical application of IBM SPSS Statistics Version 22.

Analysis Method

After all the questionnaires were processed using data processing software IBM SPSS Statistics Version 22, statistical data was obtained which was then analyzed by several tests, namely:

a. Instrument Test

The variable measuring instrument in this research uses a questionnaire, where the questionnaire will be sent to each respondent via email. This questionnaire contains statements that will be submitted to respondents, where respondents will provide answers according to their degree of agreement with the statement. A good questionnaire must be valid and reliable.

1. Validity Test

Validity shows the extent to which a measuring instrument is able to measure what the researcher wants to measure (Manurung, 2021). A valid questionnaire will be able to reveal something that is measured in research in each of its indicator questions. Questionnaire questions are declared valid if rcount > rtable.

2. Reliability Test

Reliability to determine the extent to which the measurement results remain consistent, if repeated measurements are made of the same symptoms with the same measuring instrument (Manurung, 2021). The reliability measurement technique used is the Alpha Cronbach technique with a reliability coefficient (rinstrument) > 0.6.

b. Classical Assumsption test

The classical assumption test was conducted before a more detailed analysis of the research data was conducted. In this test, several types of tests are conducted to determine whether the resulting regression model meets the BLUE criteria (Best Linear Unbiased Estimator), where the regression model that meets the BLUE criteria can be used as a good estimator. The classical assumption test consists of (Ghozali, 2016):

1. Normality Test

This test is conducted to determine the distribution of the data used to test the hypothesis that it will have a normal distribution or not. The test model that is often used is the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) model. The data has a normal distribution if the significance value is > 0.05 according to the KS test.

2. Multicollinearity Test

This test was conducted to determine whether the independent variable data obtained had a linear relationship (correlation). The value criteria for

(10)

Page : 80

determining multicollinearity is if the VIF value is < 10 and the Tolerance value is > 0.1, then the data does not contain multicollinearity.

3. Heteroscedasticity Test

Another criterion for BLUE is the error value of a data, where if the error value is constant then the resulting regression meets BLUE. The test conducted for that is the heteroscedasticity test, one of which uses the Glacier model with the provisions of the significance value of the absolute residual value < the specified significance level (0.05/5%) so it can be said to contain heteroscedasticity.

c. Linear Regression Test

In this research, a linear regression test was conducted to determine how much influence the independent variable had on the dependent variable, while the regression model was multiple regression. The regression model in this research is:

Where:

ϒ = Fraud (Dependent Variable) α = Constant

β1-3 = Coefficient of Independent Variable

Χ1 = Pressure; Χ2 =Opportunity; Χ3 =Justification (Χ=Independent Variable) ε = Standar Error

d. Hypothesis Test

The hypothesis is a temporary conclusion or can be said as a statement of the relationship between variables that needs to be tested for truth (Ghozali, 2016) through a certain method.

1. Partial Test (t-Test).

This test was conducted to determine the effect of the variables "Pressure",

"Opportunity" and "Justification" on the variable "Fraud" partially or the effect of each independent variable with the dependent variable. The criterion in this test is the significance value of t obtained, where if Sig.t < 5% then the X variable has a significant effect on the Y and Sig variables. t > 5% then the X variable has no significant effect on the Y variable.

2. Simultaneous Test (F-Test).

Simultaneous test was conducted to find out whether the variables

"Pressure", "Opportunity" and "Justification" had an effect simultaneously or simultaneously on the "Fraud" variable. The criteria used are the significance value of F obtained, if Sig.F < 5% then all X variables simultaneously affect the Y variable and Sig.F > 5% then all X variables simultaneously have no effect on Y variable.

After testing the results of data processing with the above test equipment, then findings are obtained to answer the problems in this research, and conclusions and

(11)

Page : 81 suggestions are made as a reference for organizations and become a new model to add references for academics and further research.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Instrument Test

a. Validity Test

The validity test is conducted to test the validity of the answers to the questionnaire statements, where the statements in the questionnaire will be valid if rcount >

rtable. The rtable value for N = 210 and 5% significance is 0.134. In data processing using the IBM SPSS Statistics Version 22.0 application, the rcount or Pearson Correlation value for all statements can be seen in the following table:

Table 4.7

Pearson Correlation (rcount)

Variables r Value Range Results

Pressure 0.724 – 0.817 Valid

Opportunity 0.429 – 0.585 Valid

Justification 0.552 – 0.763 Valid

b. Reliability Test

Reliability test to determine the consistency of the answers to the statements contained in the questionnaire. Consistency value or reliability value will give meaning to research reliability. The reliability measurement technique used is the Alpha Cronbach technique with a reliability coefficient where the rinstrument > rtable. The rtable value for N = 210 and 5% significance is 0.134. In data processing with the IBM SPSS Statistics Version 22.0 application, the rinstrument values obtained from the X variables are as follows:

Table 4.8

Pearson Correlation (rcount)

Variables Alpha Cronbach Results

Pressure 0.895 Reliable

Opportunity 0.588 Reliable

Justification 0.806 Reliable

Classical Assumsption Test a. Normality Test

(12)

Page : 82

The normality test was conducted using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test method, where if the significance value was > 5%, the residual value was normally distributed.

According to the calculation results of IBM SPSS Statistics Version 22, the significance value = 0.000 (with Lilliefors Significance Correction adjustment) which means that the residual value is not normally distributed or non-parametric. This is probably because of the variation of respondents used as samples, both in terms of age, education, length of work, location and gender.

b. Multicollinearity Test

The multicollinearity test in this research is to determine the value of VIF and Tolerance using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 22. The provision of values in the multicollinearity test is if the VIF value is > 10 and Tolerance < 0.1, it can be concluded that the data contains multicollinearity. If there is multicollinearity in the data, the resulting regression model does not meet the BLUE (Best Linear Unbiased Estimator) criteria. The results of data processing show that there is no multicollinearity in this regression equation. Data processing obtains the following results:

Table 4.9

VIF Value and Tolerance

Variables VIF/Tolerance Results

Pressure 1.431/0.699 No

Opportunity 1.227/0.815 No

Justification 1.482/0.675 No

c. Heteroscedasticity Test

Heteroscedasticity testing in this research uses IBM SPSS Statistics Version 22.

This test is intended to test the occurrence of variance inequality from one observation residual to another observation in the regression model, where if each independent variable (X) has a sig value. > 0.05 then there is no heteroscedasticity symptom. The results of data processing indicate that the linear regression that is formed does not occur heteroscedasticity symptoms. Following are the results of heteroscedasticity testing:

Table 4.10 Value of Sig.

Variables Sig Results

Pressure 0.010 No

Opportunity 0.354 No

Justification 0.009 No

(13)

Page : 83 Descriptive Analysis

The results of data processing using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 22 to obtain descriptive statistical values are as follows:

Table 4.11

Descriptive Statistical Value

Variables Mean Std.

Deviation Skewness Kurtosis

Pressure Factor 39.93 6.688 -1.994 4.727

Opportunity Factor

41.86 3.536 -1.126 2.506

Justification Factor

41.58 5.192 -1.988 5.152

Fraud 42.72 4.389 -1.053 1.221

a. Descriptive Analysis of Influencing Factors.

The factors that influence the occurrence of fraud in this research are thought to be factors that encourage an employee to commit fraud. The factors are as follows:

1. Pressure Factor Descriptive Analysis

Table 4.11 shows that the Mean value of the pressure factor shows that the average respondent is neutral towards the Pressure Factor as one of the factors that support employees to commit fraud, where the relatively small standard deviation value (6.688) indicates that the sample has a range of data distribution to the value narrow average. This condition means that the sample of respondents can be assumed to be relatively representative of the population.

The negative skewness value also supports the Mean value where the negative skewness value indicates that the curve formed is more left with a sharp curve shape as described by the kurtosis value (4.727). The value of skewness and kurtosis indicates that the sample respondents tend to have the same perception of the Pressure Factor variable in influencing employees to commit fraud.

2. Opportunity Factor Descriptive Analysis

In the Table of Descriptive Statistical Values, it can be seen that the Mean value of the opportunity factor shows that the average respondent is neutral towards the Opportunity Factor as one of the factors that support employees to commit fraud, where the relatively small standard deviation value (3.536) indicates that the sample has a range of distribution. the data on the average value is narrower than the pressure factor.

This small standard deviation value means that the sample of respondents can be assumed to be relatively representative of the population.

Just like the pressure factor, the negative skewness value also supports the Mean value, where the negative skewness value indicates that the curve formed is more to the left with a sharper curve than the pressure factor curve, as illustrated by the kurtosis value (2.506). The value of skewness and kurtosis indicates that the sample

(14)

Page : 84

respondents tend to have the same perception of the Pressure Factor variable in influencing employees to commit fraud.

3. Justification Factors Descriptive Analysis

The mean value of the justification factor also shows that the average respondent is neutral towards the Justification Factor as a factor that supports employees to commit fraud, but the standard deviation value which is relatively larger than the 2 factors in the other independent variables is small, namely 5.192 although this value is still relatively small. This shows that the sample has a relatively narrow range of data distribution to the average value. This condition means that the sample of respondents can be assumed to be relatively representative of the population.

The negative skewness value also supports the Mean value where the negative skewness value indicates that the curve formed is more to the left with a wider curve shape than the other 2 curves as illustrated by the kurtosis value (5,152). The value of skewness and kurtosis indicates that the sample respondents tend to have the same perception of the Pressure Factor variable in influencing employees to commit fraud.

b. Fraud Descriptive Analysis

Table 4.11 shows that the average respondent is neutral towards the elements in fraud as one part of the indications of fraud, this condition can be interpreted that respondents have almost the same perception of the fraud elements. This is supported by the relatively small standard deviation value (4.389) indicating that the sample has a narrow range of data distribution to the average value. This condition means that the sample of respondents can be assumed to be relatively representative of the population.

The value of skewness and kurtosis also shows that most of the sample respondents have the same perception with a very small difference in perception because the curve is very sharp in a perception value of the elements in Fraud.

Regression Test

The regression equation obtained from this research is:

In this equation it can be seen that the "Pressure" and "Opportunity" variables have a positive influence on encouraging employees to commit fraud, but the

"Justification" variable actually has a negative influence on employees' actions to commit fraud, where this condition explains that justification can actually reduce the desire to commit fraud. employees commit fraud.

The interesting thing about this regression equation is that there is a negative influence on the justification variable which shows that if there is justification for the employee, it will make the employee discourage his intention to commit fraud. But a large constant value indicates that the possibility of fraud occurring still exists, even though there is no Pressure, Opportunity or Justification for employees.

Hypothesis Test

a. Partial Test (t-Test)

The value of tCount with a significance of = 5% obtained for each independent variable is:

(15)

Page : 85 1. Pressure

The hypothesis set on this X1 variable is:

H1: The pressure factor will significantly influence employees to commit fraud.

In the variable "Pressure", tCount = 2.616 and tTable = 1.652; it can be concluded that the "Pressure" variable has a significant effect on the "Fraud" variable, because tCount

> tTable. This result is also supported by a significance value of tPressure = 1% (if Sig.t < 5%

then the X variable has a significant effect on the Y variable and Sig. t > 5% then the X variable has no significant effect on the Y variable). In accordance with the results of data processing, it can be concluded that H1 is accepted.

2. Opportunity

In this variable the hypotheses set is:

H2: The opportunity factor will significantly influence employees to commit fraud.

In the variable "Probability", tCount = 0.928 and tTable = 1.652; it can be concluded that the "Opportunity" variable does not have a significant effect on the "Fraud" variable, because tCount < tTable. This result is also supported by the significance value of tOpportunity

= 35.4% (if Sig.t < 5% then the X variable has a significant effect on the Y variable and Sig. t > 5% then the X variable has no significant effect on the Y variable). In accordance with the results of data processing, it can be concluded that H2 is rejected.

3. Justification

The hypothesis set on this third variable is:

H3: The justification factor will significantly influence employees to commit fraud.

In the variable "Justification", tCount = 2.648 and tTable = 2.652; it can be concluded that the variable "Justification" has a significant and inversely proportional effect on the variable "Fraud", because the absolute value of tCount > tTable. This result is also supported by a significance value of tJustification = 0.9% (if Sig.t < 5% then the X variable has a significant effect on the Y variable and Sig. t > 5% then the X variable has no significant effect on the Y variable). In accordance with the results of data processing, it can be concluded that H3 is accepted.

b. Simultaneous Test (F Test) Hypotheses related to this test are:

H4: The factors of pressure, opportunity and justification together will significantly influence employees to commit fraud.

FCount = 3,437 dan FTable = 2,648; maka dapat disimpulkan bahwa seluruh variabel X secara simultan berpengaruh terhadap Variabel Fraud, karena nilai FCount > FTable. Hasil ini didukung oleh nilai signifikansi F = 1,8% (Jika Sig.F < 5% maka seluruh variabel X secara simultan berpengaruh atas variabel Y dan Sig.F > 5% maka seluruh variabel X secara simultan tidak berpengaruh atas variabel Y). Merujuk kepada hasil pengolahan data maka dapat disimpulkan bahwa H4 dapat diterima.

(16)

Page : 86

FCount = 3.437 and FTable = 2.648; it can be concluded that all variables X simultaneously affect the Fraud Variable, because the value of FCount > FTable. This result is supported by the significance value of F = 1.8% (If Sig.F < 5% then all X variables simultaneously affect the Y variable and Sig.F > 5% then all X variables simultaneously have no effect on Y variables). Referring to the results of data processing, it can be concluded that H4 is acceped.

CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS Conclusion

The conclusions obtained from testing the hypothesis of this research, can also be used to answer the questions contained in the research objectives. Some of these conclusions include:

1) The variable "Pressure" according to employee perception has a significant positive influence as one of the factors causing fraud.

2) The variable "Opportunity" according to employee perception, has a positive insignificant influence as one of the factors causing fraud.

3) Variable "Justification" according to employee perception, has a significant negative influence as one of the factors causing fraud.

4) The three variables “Pressure”, “Opportunity” and “Justification”

simultaneously give influence as factors causing fraud.

5) The most dominant variable in giving effect is the variable "Pressure"

The interesting thing is that the factors in the opportunity variable are known to have no significant influence in committing fraud, but the factors contained in the pressure have a significant influence. The existence of a negative value in justification indicates that the existence of justification thinking can actually prevent employees from committing fraud. The magnitude of the constant value can also be interpreted that, apart from the three variables in this research, there are other factors that can influence the occurrence of fraud.

Implication

The implication of this research for companies is the need for companies to increase supervision which is not only limited to procedures, but also non-procedures in the sense of increasing employee awareness not to commit fraud or fraud, so that prevention arises from oneself.

Limitations

The limitations of this research are the respondents who are only in one company, and the research method is still simple. Data is also collected via email, where respondents are not assisted in providing answers to the statements given, this condition has the potential to make respondents misinterpret the statements submitted.

REFERENCES

Aditya P. Wicaksono dan Dekar Urumsah, (2016), Factors Influencing Employees to Commit Fraud in Workplace: Empirical Study in Indonesia Hospitals, Asia Pacific Fraud Journal Vol. 1 No. 1, January-June 2016.

Adler Manurung, David Tj, Christian HP dan Martua ET, Metode Riset: Akuntansi, Investasi, Keuangan dan Manajemen, Adler Manurung Press, 2021, p.135.

(17)

Page : 87 Anitaria Siregar dan Siti N. Harahap, (2017), Penerapan Risk Based Internal Auditing:

Studi Kasus Pada Plan International Indonesia, Jurnal Akuntansi Vol.12 No.1.

Association of Certified Fraud Examiners-Indonesia Chapter, (2017), Survai Fraud Indonesia 2016, ACFE Indonesia Chapter.

Barret. B, (2013), Inside the Mind of The White-Collar Criminal, Accounting Web, dikutip dari http://www.accountingweb.com/article/inside-the-mind-white-collar-criminal.

Didi dan Indra C. Kusuma, (2018), Faktor-Faktor Yang Berpengaruh Terhadap Kecenderungan Kecurangan (Fraud): Persepsi Pegawai Pemerintahan Daerah Kota Bogor, Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan Indonesia Vol. 15 No. 1, Juni 2018.

Donald R. Cressey, (1953), Other People's Money; A Study in The Social Psychology of Embezzlement, Reprint Montclair-N.J.: Patterson Smith, 1973, https://archive.org.

Ertambang Nahartyo dan Haryono, (2018), Magnitude of Corruption, Rationalization, And Intenal Control Quality: An Experimental Study on Subsequent Offense, Jurnal Akuntansi Dan Keuangan Indonesia Volume 15 Nomor 2, Desember 2018.

F. A. Nadia, E. Sukarmanto dan P. Purnamasari, (2018), Pengaruh Pengendalian Internal dan Good Corporate Governance Terhadap Pencegahan Kecurangan, Jurnal Akuntansi Vol. 4, No. 2.

Felix J. Darjoko dan Ertambang Nahartyo, (2017), Efek Tipe Kecurangan Dan Anonimitas Terhadap Keputusan Investigasi Auditor Internal Atas Tuduhan Whistleblowing, Jurnal Akuntansi Dan Keuangan Indonesia Vol. 14 No. 2, Desember 2017.

Fishbein. M dan Azjen. I, (1975), Beliefs, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Reading: Addison-Wisley.

Fitria Febriani dan Dhini Suryandari, (2019), Analisis Faktor-Faktor Yang Berpengaruh Terhadap Kecenderungan Kecurangan (Fraud): Persepsi Pegawai Pada Dinas Kota Tegal, Jurnal Akuntansi Vol. 9, No.1, 2019.

Ghozali, I., (2016), Aplikasi Analisis Multivariete Dengan Program IBM SPSS 23. Edisi 8.

Semarang: Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro.

Glenn. E. Deck, (1985), Controlling Employee Fraud: Strategies For Manager and Auditors, Public Budgeting and Finance Vol 5 (2), June 1985.

Hendro Lukman dan Viviani Harun, (2018), Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Deteksi Kecurangan Dalam Persepsi Auditor Eksternal Dan Auditor Internal. Jurnal Akuntansi Vol. 22 No. 02, Mei 2018.

Icek Ajzen, (1991), The Theory of Planned Behaviour, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes Vol.50. p. 179-211. Desember 1991.

John M. Bradley, (2015), Empowering Employees to Prevent Fraud in Non-profit Organizations, Cardozo Public Law, Policy and Ethics Journal Vol. 13, P. 711, 2015.

Joseph T. Wells, (2001), Why Employees Commit Fraud: It’s Either Greed or Need, https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2001/feb/whyemployeescommitfr aud.

(18)

Page : 88

K. H. Spencer Picket, (2005), The Essential Handbook of Internal Auditing, John Willey &

Sons, West Sussex-England.

Kelly Fisher, (2015), The Psychology of Fraud: What Motivates Fraudsters to Commit Crime? The Psychology of Fraud, Texas Woman’s University, Spring 2015.

Kenneth A. Merchat dan Wim A. Van der Stede, (2012), Management Control System:

performance measurement, evaluation and incentives, Pearson Education Limited.

Komite Nasional Kebijakan Governance, (2006), Pedoman Umum Good Corporate Governance Indonesia, Komite Nasional Kebijakan Governance.

___________________, (2012), Pedoman Penerapan Manajemen Risiko Berbasis Governance, http://www.knkg-indonesia.org/dokumen/Pedoman-Manajemen- Risiko-Berbasis-GCG.pdf.

Lawrence B. Sawyer, (2003), Sawyer’s Internal Auditing: The Practice of Modern Internal Auditing, Institute of Internal Auditors, Inc.

Maria, Halim, Suwardi dan Miharjo, (2019), Eksplorasi Kesempatan Untuk Melakukan Fraud di Pemerintah Daerah, Indonesia, Jurnal Akuntansi Dan Keuangan Indonesia Vol. 16 No. 1, Juni 2019.

Rambat Lupiyoadi dan Ridho Bramulya Ikhsan, (2015), Praktikum Metode Riset Bisnis, Penerbit Salemba Empat-Jakarta.

Rozmita D. Y. Rozali dan Jabbaar Mohammad, (2015), Pengaruh Pelaksanaan Risk Based Internal Auditing Terhadap Pencegahan Fraud (Studi Kasus Pada Audit Internal Kantor Inspeksi Bank BRI Wilayah Bandung), Jurnal Riset Akuntansi Dan Keuangan Vol.3 No.3.

Setiawati dan Baningrum, (2018), Deteksi Fraudulent Financial Reporting Menggunakan Analisis Fraud Pentagon: Studi Kasus Pada Perusahaan Manufaktur Yang Listed di BEI Tahun 2014-2016, Riset Akuntansi dan Keuangan Indonesia Vol.

3 No. 2.

Syamsudin, Imronudin, Utomo, Prakoso, dan Praswati, (2017), Tata Kelola Korporasi Dalam Mendeteksi Kecurangan Laporan Keuangan, Jurnal Ekonomi Manajemen Sumber Daya Vol. 19, No. 1, Juni 2017.

Tina D. Carpenter, (2007), Audit Team Brainstorming, Fraud Risk Identification, and Fraud Risk Assessment: Implications of SAS No. 99, Accounting Review, October 2007.

The Institute of Internal Auditors, (2013), IIA Position Paper: The Three Lines of Defense In Effective Risk Management and Control, https://global.theiia.org/about/about- internal-auditing/pages/position-papers.Aspx.

___________________, (2017), International Professional Practices Framework (IPPF)®

- 2017 Edition, The Internal Audit Foundation.

Zulaikha dan Paulus Th. B. Hadiprajitno, (2016), Faktor-Faktor Yang Memengaruhi Procurement Fraud: Sebuah Kajian Dari Perspektif Persepsian Auditor Eksternal, Jurnal Akuntansi Dan Keuangan Indonesia Volume 13 Nomor 2, Desember 2016.