A Systematic Literature Review of the Fraud Triangle Theory (2020-2025)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35870/emt.v10i1.5818Keywords:
Fraud Triangle Theory, Pressure, Opportunity, RationalizationAbstract
This study systematically examines the development of the Fraud Triangle Theory during the 2020–2025 period, highlighting the core issue of increasing fraud that undermines organizational performance and trust. The study was conducted as a systematic literature review of articles published between 2020 and 2025, obtained from reputable databases through processes of searching, screening, eligibility assessment, and synthesis of findings. The procedure involved determining keywords related to the Fraud Triangle Theory, selecting relevant studies in the fields of accounting and auditing, and analyzing their content to map trends, contexts, and theoretical extensions. The results identified eighteen eligible articles that consistently positioned pressure and opportunity as the main explanatory factors for fraudulent behavior, while rationalization produced varied findings. Several studies expanded the model by adding elements such as capability, arrogance, and technological opportunity, and operationalized it through advanced analytics for detection. Prospectively, integrating the Fraud Triangle Theory with behavioral, governance, and technological approaches is considered crucial for more adaptive prevention and detection efforts, while promoting stronger internal controls, ethical education, and data-driven auditing.
Downloads
References
Adeoti, M. O., Shamsudin, F. M., & Mohammad, A. M. (2021). Opportunity, job pressure and deviant workplace behaviour: does neutralisation mediate the relationship? A study of faculty members in public universities in Nigeria. European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 30(2), 170-190. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejmbe-08-2017-0002.
Awalluddin, M. A., Nooriani, T. I. T., & Maznorbalia, A. S. (2022). The Relationship Between Perceived Pressure, Perceived Opportunity, Perceived Rationalization and Fraud Tendency Among Employees: A Study from the People's Trust in Malaysia. Studies in Business & Economics, 17(2).
Chindara, T. M., Smith, R. J., & Leke, C. A. (2025). Examining the key drivers of electronic banking fraud prevalence in the South African banking sector. Cogent Business and Management, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2025.2508366.
Din, M., Munawarah, M., Ghozali, I., Achmad, T., & Karim, F. (2022). Governance of financial management and regulation-based fiscal accountability. Journal of Governance and Regulation, 11(2), 116–123. https://doi.org/10.22495/jgrv11i2art10.
Doan, T. N., & Ta, T. T. (2023). Factors of Fraud Triangle affecting the likelihood of material misstatements in financial statements: An empirical study. Journal of Governance and Regulation, 12(1), 82–92. https://doi.org/10.22495/jgrv12i1art8.
Free, C. (2015). Looking through the fraud triangle: A review and call for new directions. Meditari Accountancy Research, 23(2), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1108/medar-02-2015-0009.
Ghozali, I., & Hadiprajitno, P. T. (2016). Factors affecting government procurement fraud: The independent auditor’s point of view evidence from Indonesia. International Journal of Business and Accounting, 7(2), 79–98.
Julian, L., Johari, R. J., Said, J., & Wondabio, L. S. (2022). Fraud risk judgment measurement scale development. Journal of Governance and Regulation, 11(1 Special Issue), 303–311. https://doi.org/10.22495/jgrv11i1siart10.
Kawedar, W., Sri Handayani, R., & Milawati. (2025). Perceptions of corruption by perpetrators: An empirical analysis of the fraud triangle and attribution theories. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 23(1), 515–527. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.23(1).2025.39.
Kayani, B., & Haddad, F. S. (2019). Robotic unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Current challenges and future perspectives. Bone & Joint Research, 8(6), 228–231. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.86.BJR-2019-0080
Kitchenham, B., Pfleeger, S. L., & Fenton, N. (2002). Towards a framework for software measurement validation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 21(12), 929–944.
Lokanan, M. E. (2015). Challenges to the Fraud Triangle: Questions on its usefulness. Accounting Forum, 39(3), 201–224.
Machado, M. R. R., & Gartner, I. R. (2018). A hipótese de Cressey (1953) e a investigação da ocorrência de fraudes corporativas: Uma análise empírica em instituições bancárias brasileiras. Revista Contabilidade e Finanças, 29(76), 60–81. https://doi.org/10.1590/1808-057x201803270.
Marks, J. (2012). The mind behind the fraudsters crime: Key behavioural and environmental elements. Crowe Horwath LLP.
Persulessy, G., Mediaty, M., & Pontoh, G. T. (2022). Triangle’s fraud theory on academic fraud behavior when online learning. International Journal of Professional Business Review, 7(6). https://doi.org/10.26668/businessreview/2022.v7i6.e768.
Rahayu, D. V. R. W., & Widuri, R. (2025). Artificial neural network methodology in financial statements fraud: An empirical study in the property and real estate sector. Risk Governance and Control: Financial Markets and Institutions, 15(1 Special Issue), 237–248. https://doi.org/10.22495/rgcv15i1sip9.
Suryandari, N. N. A., Yadnyana, I. K., Ariyanto, D., & Erawati, N. M. A. (2023). Implementation of fraud triangle theory: A systematic literature review. Journal of Business Research, 10(2), 145–156.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.
Zulaikha, Basuki Hadiprajitno, P. T., Rohman, A., & Handayani, S. (2021). Effect of attitudes, subjective norms and behavioral controls on the intention and corrupt behavior in public procurement: Fraud triangle and the planned behavior in management accounting. Accounting, 7(2), 331–338. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ac.2020.11.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Putri Siregar, Sambas Ade Kesuma, Iskandar Muda, Firman Syarif
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. Copyright Retention and Open Access License
Authors retain copyright of their work and grant the journal non-exclusive right of first publication under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
This license allows unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2. Rights Granted Under CC BY 4.0
Under this license, readers are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, including commercial use
- No additional restrictions — the licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as license terms are followed
3. Attribution Requirements
All uses must include:
- Proper citation of the original work
- Link to the Creative Commons license
- Indication if changes were made to the original work
- No suggestion that the licensor endorses the user or their use
4. Additional Distribution Rights
Authors may:
- Deposit the published version in institutional repositories
- Share through academic social networks
- Include in books, monographs, or other publications
- Post on personal or institutional websites
Requirement: All additional distributions must maintain the CC BY 4.0 license and proper attribution.
5. Self-Archiving and Pre-Print Sharing
Authors are encouraged to:
- Share pre-prints and post-prints online
- Deposit in subject-specific repositories (e.g., arXiv, bioRxiv)
- Engage in scholarly communication throughout the publication process
6. Open Access Commitment
This journal provides immediate open access to all content, supporting the global exchange of knowledge without financial, legal, or technical barriers.
