ODUNLADE, Olapade Gbenga B.Sc., M.Sc., ACA, Department of Accountancy, Faculty of Business Administration, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State, Nigeria.
ABSTRACT
This study is an empirical investigation on the opinions of senior audit staff of audit firms on the impact of creative accounting practices on audit risk. To achieve the objective of this study research questions were raised, hypotheses formulated, and a review of related literature was made. The population of this study is the senior audit staff of audit firms in Nigeria. Purposive sampling technique was adopted for this study. The sample used consisted of the 20 experienced/senior audit managers drawn from 4 audit firms of KPMG, PWC, Akintola William Delloite and Grant Thornton Nigeria.. The survey method of research design was adopted and the primary data were employed. The major instrument used for generating the primary data was the questionnaire, which was designed in five-response option of Likert-scale and administered on the senior audit managers chosen for this study. The data generated for this study were analyzed through mean scores while the stated hypotheses were statistically tested using simple linear regression. Our findings revealed that, creative accounting practices have significant impact on the level of audit risk in Nigeria and by implication adversely affect the audit of financial statements. Therefore we recommended among others that auditors should ensure that sufficient audit evidence is obtained while carrying out the audit of financial statements in order to ensure that appropriate audit opinion is expressed on financial statements which have been doctored by the management.
- Introduction
External auditors are statutorily expected to conduct audit exercises on business entities and give an independent opinion on their financial statements. Such opinion gives the users of the financial statements reasonable assurance that the audited financial statements give a true and fair view of the financial position of the entities. However, corporate failures have been witnessed and material misstatements have been discovered after audit. It thus appears that external auditors may express an opinion which does not reflect the true state of the financial affairs. This is referred to as audit risk. When creative accounting techniques are used by a company, audit risk increases and may consequently result in investment loss if such company fails [1].
Creative accounting is an assembly of procedures in order to change the profit, by increasing or decreasing, or to misrepresent the financial statements, or both of them. It is the transformation of financial accounting figures from what they actually are to what preparers desire by taking advantage of the existing rules and/or ignoring some or all of them [2]. Management engage in creative accounting due to the flexibility in the choice of accounting methods often allowed by accounting standards. Financial directors had in time past, been penalized for engaging in the manipulative accounting and as a result lost their jobs.
The real causes of creative accounting lie in the conflicts of interest among different interest groups. Managing shareholders’ interest is to pay less tax and dividends. Investor-shareholders are interested to get more dividends and capital gains. Country’s tax authorities would like to collect more and more taxes. Employees are interested to get better salary and higher profit share [4]. Thus, the external auditors are appointed to express an independent opinion on the financial statements to assure the non managing owners and other stakeholders that no material misstatements or distortions of the financial statements have occur. However, where creative accounting techniques have been used, the auditors may express in appropriate opinion. This is known as audit risk.
Audit risk is the risk that auditors may give an inappropriate opinion on financial statements”. They identified two forms, they are: the risk that the auditor may express a qualified opinion (say something is amiss) on financial statements that are not materially misstated; and the risk that the auditor may express an unqualified (‘clean’) opinion on financial statements that are materially misstated [5]. It is upon this background that this study seeks to provide an empirical investigation on the opinion of the senior audit staff of the selected audit firms on the impact of creative accounting practices on the audit of the financial statements in Nigeria.
This paper is structured into the following sections: introduction, conceptual framework/literature review, methodology, results/analysis, conclusion and recommendation.
- Statement of the Problem
Past studies have tried to investigate the concept of creative accounting and the various techniques used by management to manipulate financial statements. However, the impact of creative accounting practices on the audit of financial statements and the consequent effect on audit failure has not been given much attention. Accountants and auditors are now more than ever, facing lawsuits brought against them for not detecting material misstatements in the financial statements in the course of an audit thereby issuing an inappropriate audit opinion in their reports. Thus, it would appear that a properly executed audit exercise does not guarantee that serious distortions of the financial statement have not occurred especially where such distortions were primarily through the use of creative accounting techniques. However, empirical evidences are not available to show that auditors were misled to issue wrong audit opinion as a result of creative accounting practices. This study aimed at filling this gap
- Research Objectives
The main objective of this study is to provide an empirical investigation on the opinion of the senior audit staff of the “big four” audit firms on the impact of creative accounting practices on the audit of the financial statements in Nigeria. Specifically, the study aimed at achieving the following:
- To determine the impact of creative accounting practice on audit risk.
- To examine the impact of creative accounting practices on audit opinion.
- Research Questions
The following questions were raised for this study:
- What is the impact of creative accounting practices on audit risk?
- What is the impact of creative accounting practices on audit opinion?
- Research Hypotheses
The following hypotheses were formulated for the study:
- Creative accounting practices do not have positive and significant impact on audit risk.
- Creative accounting practices do not have positive and significant impact on audit opinion.
- Conceptual Framework and Literature Review
In order to rely on the financial statements prepared by the management, owners of business entities engage external auditors to examine the underlying books and records and thereafter express an independent opinion whether the financial statements represent the true and fair view of the financial position and the affairs of the business entities. In Nigeria, publicly quoted entities are required by law to appoint external auditors to carry out annual audit [6]. The Nigerian Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2004 (as amended), section 359(1) states that “the auditors of a company shall make a report to its members on the account examined by them, and on all group financial statements, copies of which are to be laid before the company in a general meeting during the auditor’s tenure of office”. Section 643 of CAMA provides that if any person wilfully makes a material false statement in any return, certification, balance sheet or other document for purpose of CAMA provisions, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment, fine or both as prescribed for that breach.
Motivations for Creative Accounting Practices
Various research studies have examined the issue of motivations for creative accounting behaviour. The conflicts of interest among different interest groups represent the real causes of creative accounting. The managers are interested in paying less tax and dividends, the shareholders in receiving higher dividends, the employees in obtaining better salary and higher profit share, while the government wants higher taxes and so on [7]. These conflicting interests are often argued to be the motivations for creative accounting practices. Creative accounting may help maintain or boost the share price both by reducing the apparent levels of borrowing, so making the company appear subject to less risk, and by creating the appearance of a good profit trend [8]. Other motivations for creative accounting include those provided when significant capital market transactions are anticipated, and when there is a gap between the actual performance of the firm and analysts’ expectations. A variant on income smoothing is to manipulate profit to tie in to forecasts [9].
In Nigeria, the case of Cadbury Nigeria Plc provides a good example of management motivations to use creative accounting techniques. According to the company’s Public Affairs Manager, over the number of years, Cadbury Nigeria (its management) had assigned itself an ambitious growth targets. These ambitious targets led to book padding scandal in the company. Subsequently, the Managing Director, Mr. Bunmi Oni and Mr. Ayo Akadiri, the company’s Finance Director were sacked on account of manipulating the company’s financial records and corruption [10]. Cadbury and Lever Brothers’ auditors had consistently asserted that the financial statements of these firms gave a true and fair view but investigations revealed that these firms had consistently manipulated their accounts.
Audit Risk
Corporate accounting fraudulence always has internal fabrication which greatly increases the inherent risk and internal control risk [11]. This may be in form of deliberate manipulation of the financial statement by the management of a firm using the techniques of creative accounting. This has been identified as a factor which increases the risk faced by auditors in the course of an audit. With the existence of fraud, auditors may fail to collect sufficient audit evidence or fail to properly evaluate the accounts which may have been doctored by the management. This may also hinder their ability to detect any material misstatement which may influence the audit opinion to be given at the end of an audit. This has been identified as detection risk. Inherent risk (IR) on the other hand, refers to the sensitivity of an account to misstatements before applying controls, while the risk that the internal control system cannot prevent or detect misstatements is known as control risk (CR). IR and CR are both owned by entities, i.e. the entity influence them, but the external auditor cannot control the level of either.
A long relationship between audit firms and management can weaken their ability to provide rigorous scrutiny of their client’s accounts [12]. Furthermore, the distorted incentives of providing non-audit services can also weaken their ability to detect creative accounting practices. Hence, if the auditors issue an audit report with a conclusion that the financial statements do not show a true and fair view, they know that it is possible to be fired or having their fee reduced.
Another factor which may affect an audit risk is the determination of materiality. The assessment of what is material is a matter of professional judgment and includes consideration of both the amount (quantity) and nature (quality) of misstatements [13]. The sensitivity of an item nature is important in deciding materiality, even a small inaccuracy can be material. A user of the financial statements could be misled by inadequate or inaccurate description of an accounting (policy due to creative accounting practice), this description can be perceived to be material misstatement as well [14].
The overall materiality means the amount of error that the auditor is prepared to accept as a whole but still concludes they provide a true and fair view of the affairs and profit/loss of the reporting company. The auditor needs to estimate materiality level before commencing an audit based on his understanding of the client, its business and industry and on his assessment of the decision needs of users of its financial statements.
Assessment and Responses to Audit Risk
The auditor’s overall responses to address the assessed risks of material misstatement at the financial statement level may include emphasizing to the audit team the need to maintain professional skepticism in gathering and evaluating audit evidence, assigning more experienced staff or those with specialized skills or using specialists, providing more supervision, or incorporating additional elements of unpredictability in the selection of further audit procedures to be performed. Additionally, the auditor may make general changes to the nature, timing, or extent of further audit procedures as an overall response, for example, performing substantive procedures at period end instead of at an interim date.
The assessment of the risks of material misstatement at the financial statement level is affected by the auditor’s understanding of the control environment. An effective control environment may allow the auditor to have more confidence in internal control and the reliability of audit evidence generated internally within the entity and thus, for example, allow the auditor to perform some audit procedures at an interim date rather than at period end. If there are weaknesses in the control environment, the auditor should consider an appropriate response. For example, the auditor could perform audit procedures as of the period end rather than at an interim date, seek more extensive audit evidence from substantive procedures, modify the nature of audit procedures to obtain more persuasive audit evidence, or increase the number of locations to be included in the audit scope. Such considerations, therefore, have a significant bearing on the auditor’s general approach, for example, an emphasis on substantive procedures (substantive approach), or an approach that uses tests of controls as well as substantive procedures (combined approach)
SAS requires the auditor should design and perform further audit procedures whose nature, timing, and extent are responsive to the assessed risks of material misstatement at the relevant assertion level. The purpose is to provide a clear linkage between the nature, timing, and extent of the auditor’s further audit procedures and the risk assessments. In designing further audit procedures, the auditor should consider such matters as:
- The significance of the risk,
- The likelihood that a material misstatement will occur,
- The characteristics of the class of transactions, account balance, or disclosure involved,
- The nature of the specific controls used by the entity, in particular, whether they are manual or automated,
- Whether the auditor expects to obtain audit evidence to determine if the entity’s controls are effective in preventing or detecting material misstatements the nature of the audit procedures is of most importance in responding to the assessed risks [15].
A properly done audit is one that identifies the applicable audit risks and assesses them in order to respond to the risk through appropriate audit procedures. However, a properly done audit does not guarantee serious distortions have not occurred, but it makes serious distortions unlikely. Thus, [16] found that creative accounting increases the risk faced by the auditors.
In the Study of American Audit Failure, [17] found that audit failure occurs when Certified Public Accountant (CPA) provides error audit opinion (due to high audit risk) for unfaithful financial statements because he or she doesn’t conform to audit standard.
Failure by auditors to detect a material error or misstatement in accounting information can arise from three main causes, two of which may be attributed to audit failure [18]. First, auditors may either fail to detect a material error or misstatement, or, having detected an error, fail to recognise it, because they have carried out a substandard audit, i.e. the auditors are incompetent. Second, auditors may identify a material error or misstatement and fail to report it or fail to persuade the directors to put it right, i.e. the auditors lack independence. Third, directors may deliberately deceive auditors. In cases of deliberate deception, auditors may not be held responsible for failure to detect problems such as creative accounting practices.
In Nigeria, [19] sought to find out whether financial accounting information users including the auditors are aware of creative accounting in the private sector of the economy. They carried out their study in Lagos, through field work questionnaire administered on practicing accountants from randomly selected audit firms. They found out that creative accounting has definitely affected information users. Hence in Nigeria it is believed that the practice of creative accounting is constructive to the benefit of the manipulator of accounts. They also found out that the genuinely positive aspect of the corporation is presented in its fullest proportion to the public, while the area of weakness is played down in reporting in anticipation of correcting the weakness. They further revealed that accounting bases, principles and processes should be streamlined to reduce diversities of human judgments on accounting issues.
Audit Opinion
The auditors have sole responsibility for the audit opinion expressed on a set of financial statements audited by them [20] An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation and fair presentation4 of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control. To express an appropriate audit opinion in the circumstances, auditors must obtain audit evidence that is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion [21]
Form of Audit Opinion
According to [22], the auditor shall express an unmodified opinion when the auditor concludes that the financial statements are prepared, in all material respects, in accordance with the applicable financial reporting framework. However, if the auditor concludes that, based on the audit evidence obtained, the financial statements as a whole are not free from material misstatement; or is unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to conclude that the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, the auditor shall modify the opinion in the auditor’s report in accordance with ISA 705 [23].
Determining the Type of Modification to the Auditor’s Opinion
Modified audit opinion are of three types; qualified opinion, adverse opinion and disclaimer of opinion. According to [24], the auditor shall express a qualified opinion when: (a) The auditor, having obtained sufficient appropriate audit evidence, concludes that misstatements, individually or in the aggregate, are material, but not pervasive, to the financial statements; or (b) The auditor is unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence on which to base the opinion, but the auditor concludes that the possible effects on the financial statements of undetected misstatements, if any, could be material but not pervasive.
The auditor shall express an adverse opinion when the auditor, having obtained sufficient appropriate audit evidence, concludes that misstatements, individually or in the aggregate, are both material and pervasive to the financial statements while a disclaimer of opinion is expressed when the auditor is unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence on which to base the opinion, and the auditor concludes that the possible effects on the financial statements of undetected misstatements, if any, could be both material and pervasive [25].
Pervasive is a term used, in the context of misstatements, to describe the effects on the financial statements of misstatements or the possible effects on the financial statements of misstatements, if any that are undetected due to an inability to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence. Pervasive effects on the financial statements are those that, in the auditor’s judgment:
(a) Are not confined to specific elements, accounts or items of the financial statements;
(b) If so confined, represent or could represent a substantial proportion of the financial statements; or
(c) In relation to disclosures, are fundamental to users’ understanding of the financial statements.
The auditor shall disclaim an opinion when, in extremely rare circumstances involving multiple uncertainties, the auditor concludes that, notwithstanding having obtained sufficient appropriate audit evidence regarding each of the individual uncertainties, it is not possible to form an opinion on the financial statements due to the potential interaction of the uncertainties and their possible cumulative effect on the financial statements [26].
- Methodology
The survey method of research design was adopted in this study. The population of the study is the senior managers of the four audit firms in Nigeria. Purposive sampling technique was adopted for this study and the sampled members consisted of twenty (20) senior managers; each from KPMG, PWC, Akintola William Delloite and Grant Thornton Nigeria.
The main instrument used for the collection of data in this study was the questionnaire, which was designed in five response options of likert-scale (i.e. strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree and neutral). The questionnaire was administered on the selected senior audit managers who have more than 10 years audit experience.
The data generated for this study were analyzed using mean scores. The stated hypotheses were statistically tested using the simple linear regression.
- Results and Analysis
In the section we present the result of hypotheses testing and data analysis.
Test of Hypotheses
- Creative accounting practices do not have positive and significant impact on audit risk.
Descriptive Statistics
| Mean | Std. Deviation | N | |
| Audit risk | 2.2500 | 1.01889 | 60 |
| creative accounting | 1.7500 | 1.09892 | 60 |
| Correlations | |||
| Audit risk | creative accounting | ||
| Pearson Correlation | Audit risk | 1.000 | .844 |
| creative accounting | .844 | 1.000 | |
| Sig. (1-tailed) | Audit risk | . | .000 |
| creative accounting | .000 | . | |
| N | Audit risk | 60 | 60 |
| creative accounting | 60 | 60 | |
| Model Summaryb | |||||
| Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate | Durbin-Watson |
| 1 | .844a | .712 | .707 | .55130 | .309 |
| a. Predictors: (Constant), creative accounting | |||||
| b. Dependent Variable: Audit risk | |||||
| ANOVAb | ||||||
| Model | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
| 1 | Regression | 43.622 | 1 | 43.622 | 143.525 | .000a |
| Residual | 17.628 | 58 | .304 | |||
| Total | 61.250 | 59 | ||||
| a. Predictors: (Constant), creative accounting | ||||||
| b. Dependent Variable: Audit risk | ||||||
| Coefficientsa | ||||||
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | ||
| B | Std. Error | Beta | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | .881 | .135 | 6.541 | .000 | |
| creative accounting | .782 | .065 | .844 | 11.980 | .000 | |
| a. Dependent Variable: Audit risk | ||||||
R = 0.844
R2 = 0. 712
F = 143.525
T = 6. 541
DW = 0. 309
Interpretation:
The regression sum of squares (43.622) is greater than the residual sum of squares (17.628), which indicates that more of the variation in the dependent variable is explained by the model. The significance value of the F statistics (0.000) is less than 0.05, which means that the variation explained by the model is not due to chance.
R, the correlation coefficient which has a value of 0.844, indicates that there is positive relationship between creative accounting practices and audit risk. R square, the coefficient of determination, shows that 71.2% of the variation in audit risk is explained by the model.
With the linear regression model, the error of estimate is low, with a value of about .55130. The Durbin Watson statistics of 0.309, which is not more than 2, indicates there is no auto correlation.
Decision: The creative accounting coefficient of 0.844 indicates a positive significance between creative accounting and audit risk, which is statistically significant (with t = 6.541).
Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted. This implies that creative accounting practices have positive and significant impact on audit risk.
- Creative accounting practices do not have positive and significant impact on audit opinion.
| Descriptive Statistics | |||
| Mean | Std. Deviation | N | |
| Audit opinion | 1.8500 | 1.05485 | 60 |
| creative accounting | 2.5333 | 1.41980 | 60 |
| Correlations | |||
| Audit opinion | creative accounting | ||
| Pearson Correlation | Audit opinion | 1.000 | .869 |
| creative accounting | .869 | 1.000 | |
| Sig. (1-tailed) | Audit opinion | . | .000 |
| creative accounting | .000 | . | |
| N | Audit opinion | 60 | 60 |
| creative accounting | 60 | 60 | |
| Model Summaryb | |||||
| Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate | Durbin-Watson |
| 1 | .869a | .755 | .751 | .52616 | .273 |
| a. Predictors: (Constant), creative accounting | |||||
| b. Dependent Variable: Audit opinion | |||||
| ANOVAb | ||||||
| Model | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
| 1 | Regression | 49.593 | 1 | 49.593 | 179.134 | .000a |
| Residual | 16.057 | 58 | .277 | |||
| Total | 65.650 | 59 | ||||
| a. Predictors: (Constant), creative accounting | ||||||
| b. Dependent Variable: Audit opinion | ||||||
| Coefficientsa | ||||||
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | ||
| B | Std. Error | Beta | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | .214 | .140 | 1.531 | .131 | |
| creative accounting | .646 | .048 | .869 | 13.384 | .000 | |
| a. Dependent Variable: Audit opinion | ||||||
R = 0.869
R2 = 0. 755
F = 179.134
T = 1. 531
DW = 0. 273
Interpretation:
The regression sum of squares (49.593) is greater than the residual sum of squares (16.057), which indicates that more of the variation in the dependent variable is explained by the model. The significance value of the F statistics (0.000) is less than 0.05, which means that the variation explained by the model is not due to chance.
R, the correlation coefficient which has a value of 0.869, indicates that there is positive relationship between creative accounting and audit opinion. R square, the coefficient of determination, shows that 75.5% of the variation in audit opinion is explained by the model.
With the linear regression model, the error of estimate is low, with a value of about .52616. The Durbin Watson statistics of 0.273, which is not more than 2, indicates there is no autocorrelation.
Decision: The creative accounting coefficient of 0.869 indicates a positive significance between creative accounting and audit opinion, though not statistically significant (with t = 1.531). Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted. This implies that creative accounting practices have positive impact on audit opinion.
- Conclusion and Recommendations
The results of our analysis revealed that creative accounting practices have significant impact on the level of audit risk in Nigeria and by implication adversely affect the audit opinion on financial statements. Our survey report for this purpose showed that R, the correlation coefficient, has a value of 0.844, indicating a positive and significant relationship between creative accounting practices and audit risk. This finding agrees with [11] who reported that corporate accounting fraudulence always has internal fabrication which greatly increases the inherent risk and internal control risk. Our result also conforms to [16] who were of the opinion that creative accounting increases the risk faced by the auditors.
Finally, the result of our analysis indicated that creative accounting practices have significant impact on audit opinion and by implication on the likelihood of expressing an inappropriate opinion by the auditors. Our analysis for this purpose showed that R, the correlation coefficient, has a value of 0.869 indicating that a positive relationship between creative accounting and audit opinion. This finding lends support to [17], who found that audit failure occurs when Certified Public Accountant (CPA) provides error audit opinion for unfaithful financial statements because he or she doesn’t conform to audit standard.
Based on the findings from this study, the following recommendations are made:
- Audit risk assessment should include assessment of the likelihood of creative accounting practices and techniques being used by management to distort the financial statements.
- Auditors should ensure that more attention is given to the detection of creative accounting techniques while carrying out the audit of the financial statements.
- Auditors should ensure that sufficient audit evidence is obtained while carrying out the audit of financial statements in order to ensure that appropriate audit opinion is expressed on financial statements which have been doctored by the management.
- Accounting Standards setting bodies should minimise the flexibility in accounting regulation which permits discretion in choosing the accounting policy to follow by the preparers of financial statements. This flexibility has resulted in a completely doctored financial statements presented for audit by companies.
REFERENCES
[1] Lei, L. (2009), The Audit Risk Associated with Fraudulent Accounting of Listed Companies in China: A case study, Dissertation, University of Nottingham. [2] Stolowy, H. (2000), Creative Accounting. Encyclopedia de Comptabilite, Controle de Gestion et Audit ( ed. Bernard Colosse), Economica: 157-178. [3] Naser, K. (1993), Creative Financial Accounting: Its Nature and Use, Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall. [4] Sanusi, B., and F, Izedonmi (2014), Nigerian Commercial Banks and Creative Accounting Practices. Journal of Mathematical Finance, (4)75-83. Published Online February 2014 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/jmf). [5] Porter, B., J. Simon, and D. Hatherly (2003), Principle of External Auditing’, 2ed. England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [6] CAMA (2004): Lagos: Federal Ministry of Information. [7] Balaciu, D, V, Bogdan, and A.B. Vladu (2009), A brief review of creative accounting literature and its consequences in practice, Publicat_ în Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 13-14 November, 2009(1)11:16, available at :http: // econpapers.repec.org/article/alujournl/default1.htm [8] Amat, O., C. Gowthorpe and J. Perramon (2003), Earnings Management in Spain: An Assessment of the Effect on Reported Earnings of Larger Listed Companies: 1999-2001, Economic Working Paper Series, Universitat Pompeu Fabra. [9] Healy, P. and M. Wahlen (1999), The effect of bonus schemes on accounting decisions, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 7:85-107. [10] Okoye, E.I. and B.B. Alao (2008), Creative Accounting in Financial Reporting, Journal of Association of National Accountants of Nigeria, 16(1): 45-55. [11] Lei, L. (2009), The Audit Risk Associated with Fraudulent Accounting of Listed Companies in China: A case study, Dissertation, University of Nottingham.Moizer (1997).
[12] Moizer, P. (1997), Current issues in Auditing, 3ed., London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Add a Comment