Jämför metoder
Granska de valda metoderna sida vid sida; rader som skiljer sig är markerade.
| Bedrägeri-riskbedömning× | Analytiska procedurer inom revision× | |
|---|---|---|
| Ämnesområde | Redovisning | Redovisning |
| Familj | MCDM | MCDM |
| Ursprungsår≠ | 2002 | 1983 |
| Upphovsperson | American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) | American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) |
| Typ≠ | Fraud risk assessment and audit procedure framework | Audit procedure methodology |
| Ursprungskälla≠ | American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (2016). Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit. AU-C Section 240. AICPA Professional Standards. link ↗ | American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (2015). Analytical Procedures. AU-C Section 520. AICPA Professional Standards. link ↗ |
| Alias | Fraud Brainstorming, Fraud Risk Identification, Anti-Fraud Assessment | Analytical Review, Ratio Analysis, Trend Analysis |
| Närliggande | 4 | 4 |
| Sammanfattning≠ | Fraud Risk Assessment is a structured audit methodology required by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) for identifying and evaluating risks that financial statements could be materially misstated due to fraud. Unlike audit risk assessment focused on error, fraud assessment considers intentional deception by management or employees, incorporating fraud theory, the corporate environment, and specific fraud risk factors to design targeted audit procedures. | Analytical procedures are evaluations of financial information made by studying plausible relationships among both financial and non-financial data. Rather than testing individual transactions, auditors develop expectations about what numbers should be and compare them to actual results, investigating significant differences. This approach is both required during audit planning and is often more cost-effective than detailed transaction testing. |
| ScholarGateDatamängd ↗ |
|
|