Digital Transformation and Fraud Challenges: Cybersecurity Analysis in Indonesian State-Owned Enterprises Using The Heptagon Framework

  • Authors

    • Azalia Nadya Ayu Maharani Universitas Dian Nuswantoro
    • Imang Dapit Pamungkas Universitas Dian Nuswantoro
    https://doi.org/10.14419/0a71t839

    Received date: October 2, 2025

    Accepted date: November 28, 2025

    Published date: December 20, 2025

  • Fraud Heptagon; Financial Statement Fraud; Digital Forensics; Risk Management; Cybersecurity

  • Abstract

    Fraud and cyber-related threats represent critical challenges to the integrity of state-owned enterprises (SOEs), particularly during their on-‎going digital transformation efforts aimed at improving transparency and operational efficiency. This study investigates how the Fraud Hep-‎tagon framework, digital forensic techniques, and risk management practices collectively contribute to mitigating fraudulent activities and ‎enhancing the reliability of SOE information systems. A mixed-methods design was applied, integrating qualitative and quantitative ap-‎proaches. The qualitative strand involved semi-structured interviews with 25 participants, including IT managers, cybersecurity personnel, ‎and internal auditors, to identify the underlying drivers of fraud in SOEs. Meanwhile, the quantitative strand examined the effectiveness of ‎digital forensic practices in minimizing the likelihood of financial statement manipulation, drawing on secondary datasets. The qualitative ‎findings highlight that systemic pressures, operational inefficiencies, and institutional vulnerabilities are dominant factors influencing ‎fraudulent conduct. Conversely, technology-enabled controls and risk-based mechanisms significantly strengthen monitoring, detection, and ‎accountability. The quantitative results further validate that digital forensic applications play a substantial role in fraud prevention. Collective-‎ly, the evidence suggests that fraud within SOEs is predominantly systemic rather than individual in nature, underscoring the necessity for ‎integrated interventions across behavioral, technological, and governance dimensions. By combining the Fraud Heptagon perspective with ‎digital forensic methodologies and structured risk management frameworks, organizations can establish more robust strategies to prevent ‎and mitigate fraudulent practices, while simultaneously reinforcing the dependability of information systems. The insights derived from this ‎research provide actionable recommendations for policymakers, corporate governance authorities, and financial professionals, while also ‎laying the groundwork for comparative studies across sectors and organizational settings. Ultimately, this study advances the global dis-‎course on fraud prevention and cybersecurity in the context of digitally evolving enterprises‎.

  • References

    1. Abad-Segura, E., González-Zamar, M.-D., Infante-Moro, J. C., & Ruipérez García, G. (2020). Sustainable Management of Digital Transformation in Higher Education: Global Research Trends. Sustainability, 12(5), 2107. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12052107.
    2. Achmad, T., Ghozali, I., Helmina, M. R. A., Hapsari, D. I., & Pamungkas, I. D. (2023). Detecting Fraudulent Financial Reporting Using the Fraud Hexagon Model: Evidence from the Banking Sector in Indonesia. Economies, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/economies11010005.
    3. Achmad, T., Hapsari, D. I., & Pamungkas, I. D. (2022). Analysis of Fraud Pentagon Theory to Detecting Fraudulent Financial Reporting using F-Score Model in State-Owned Companies Indonesia. WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics, 19, 124–133. https://doi.org/10.37394/23207.2022.19.13.
    4. Akbar, T. (2017). The Determination of Fraudulent Financial Reporting Causes By Using Pentagon Theory on Manufacturing Companies in Indonesia. International Journal of Business, Economics and Law, 14(5), 106–113.
    5. Alvarenga, A., Matos, F., Godina, R., & Matias, J. C. O. (2020). Digital transformation and knowledge management in the public sector. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145824.
    6. Amlayasa, A. A. B., & Riasning, N. P. (2022). The role of emotional intelligence in moderating the relationship of self-efficacy and professional skepticism towards the auditor’s responsibility in detecting fraud. International Journal of Scientific and Management Research, 5(11), 1–14.
    7. Andalia, A., Amiruddin, A., & Pontoh, G. T. (2021). Analysis of Factors Affecting Fraudulent Financial Reporting with Independent Commissioners as Moderation Variable. GATR Accounting and Finance Review, 5(4), 01–12. https://doi.org/10.35609/afr.2021.5.4(1).
    8. Anisykurlillah, I., Ardiansah, M. N., & Nurrahmasari, A. (2023). Fraudulent Financial Statements Detection Using Fraud Triangle Analysis: Institutional Ownership as A Moderating Variable. Accounting Analysis Journal, 11(2), 138–148. https://doi.org/10.15294/aaj.v11i2.57517.
    9. Arum, E. D. P., Wijaya, R., Wahyudi, I., & Brilliant, A. B. (2023). Corporate Governance and Financial Statement Fraud during the COVID-19: Study of Companies under Special Monitoring in Indonesia. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 16(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16070318.
    10. Buallay, A. (2019). Is sustainability reporting (ESG) associated with performance? Evidence from the European banking sector. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-12-2017-0149.
    11. Bujaki, M., Lento, C., & Sayed, N. (2019). Utilizing professional accounting concepts to understand and respond to academic dishonesty in accounting programs. Journal of Accounting Education, 47(xxxx), 28–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccedu.2019.01.001.
    12. Chen, X., Wang, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Detecting Financial Statement Fraud Using Machine-Learning Methods. In FinTech Research and Applications: Challenges and Opportunities (pp. 235–263). World Scientific. https://doi.org/10.1142/9781800612723_0006.
    13. Cressey. (1953). Other people’s money; a study of the social psychology of embezzlement. pp. 1-300.
    14. Daraojimba, R. E., Farayola, O. A., Olatoye, F. O., Mhlongo, N., & Oke, T. T. (2023). Forensic accounting in the digital age: a US perspective: scrutinizing methods and challenges in digital financial fraud prevention. Finance & Accounting Research Journal, 5(11), 342–360. https://doi.org/10.51594/farj.v5i11.614.
    15. Dechow, P. M., Ge, W., Larson, C. R., & Sloan, R. G. (2011). Predicting Material Accounting Misstatements. Contemporary Accounting Research, 28(1), 17–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.2010.01041.x.
    16. Dosumu, O. O., Adediwin, O., Nwulu, E. O., Daraojimba, A. I., & Chibunna, U. B. (2024). Digital transformation in the oil & gas sector: A conceptual model for IoT and cloud solutions. Journal Name, Volume, Pages Not Provided.
    17. Dutchak, R., Kondratiuk, O., Rudenko, O., Shaikan, A., & Shubenko, E. (2021). Internal Audit of Cybercrimes in Information Technologies of Enterprises Accounting. SHS Web of Conferences, 100, 1006. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202110001006.
    18. Ejiofor, O. E. (2023). A comprehensive framework for strengthening USA financial cybersecurity: integrating machine learning and AI in fraud detection systems. European Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology, 11(6), 62–83.
    19. Ghozali, I., Achmad, T., & Pamungkas, I. D. (2019). Determinants of fraudulent financial reporting and whistleblowing system: Applying theory of planned behavior. WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics, 16, 393–402.
    20. Glembotskaya, G. T., Eremin, S. Y., & Chupandina, E. E. (2020). Scientific priorities and real prospects for cost optimization in formulation development. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 7(3), 1484–1499. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2020.7.3(4).
    21. Hafez, I. Y., Hafez, A. Y., Saleh, A., Abd El-Mageed, A. A., & Abohany, A. A. (2025). A systematic review of AI-enhanced techniques in credit card fraud detection. Journal of Big Data, 12(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-024-01048-8.
    22. Handayani, J. R., Nurcahyono, N., Saadah, N., & Winarsih. (2023). Hexagon Fraud: Detection of Fraudulent Financial Statement in Indonesia (Vol. 1). Atlantis Press International BV. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6463-154-8_24.
    23. Handoko, B. L., & Angelyca, A. N. (2023). Examining the Psychological Aspect: Fraudulent Financial Reporting in Property and Real Estate Companies Listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange During the Covid-19 Pandemic using the Fraud Heptagon Approach. Journal for ReAttach Therapy and Developmental Diversities, 6(10s (2)), 650–661.
    24. Howarth, C. (2012). The Mind Behind the Fraudsters Crime: Key Behavioral and Environmental Elements. Crowe Horwath LLP, 1–62.
    25. Ibrani, E. Y., Faisal, F., & Handayani, Y. D. (2019). Determinant of non-GAAP earnings management practices and its impact on firm value. Cogent Business and Management, 6(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1666642.
    26. Lari Dashtbayaz, M., Salehi, M., & Hedayatzadeh, M. (2022). Comparative analysis of the relationship between internal control weakness and different types of auditor opinions in fraudulent and non-fraudulent firms. Journal of Financial Crime, 29(1), 325–341. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-01-2021-0005.
    27. Lastanti, H. S., Murwaningsari, E., & Umar, H. (2022). The Effect of Hexagon Fraud on Fraud Financial Statements with Governance and Culture as Moderating Variables. Media Riset Akuntansi, Auditing & Informasi, 22(1), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.25105/mraai.v22i1.13533.
    28. Mangala, D., & Soni, L. (2023). A systematic literature review on frauds in banking sector. Journal of Financial Crime, 30(1), 285–301. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-12-2021-0263.
    29. Mohamed Yusof, K. (2016). Fraudulent financial reporting: An application of fraud models to malaysian public listed companies. University of Hull.
    30. Nugroho, D. S., & Diyanty, V. (2022). Fraud Hexagon and Fraudulent Financial Statement: Comparison Between OMI and Beneish Model. Proceedings of the International Conference on Economics, Management and Accounting (ICEMAC 2021), 207(Icemac 2021), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.220204.001.
    31. Pizzi, S., Venturelli, A., Variale, M., & Macario, G. P. (2021). Assessing the impacts of digital transformation on internal auditing: A bibliometric analysis. Technology in Society, 67, 101738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101738.
    32. Pramana, Y., Suprasto, H. B., Putri, I. G. A. M. D., & Budiasih, I. G. A. N. (2019). Fraud factors of financial statements on construction industry in Indonesia stock exchange. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 3(2), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.29332/ijssh.v3n2.313.
    33. Pramesti, D. I., & Kusumawati, E. (2023). The Effect of Pentagon Fraud on Fraudulent Financial Statement (Empirical Study on Non-Financial Companies Listed on the IDX for the Period 2019-2021). International Journal of Latest Research in Humanities and Social Science (IJLRHSS, 06(03), 139–147.
    34. Roszkowska, P. (2021). Fintech in financial reporting and audit for fraud prevention and safeguarding equity investments. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 17(2), 164–196. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAOC-09-2019-0098.
    35. Sari, Maylia Pramono, K., Rahmadani, L. V., Khairunnisa, H., & Pamungkas, I. D. (2020). Detection fraudulent financial reporting and corporate governance mechanisms using fraud diamond theory of the property and construction sectors in Indonesia. Humanities and Social Sciences Reviews, 8(3), 1065–1072. https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2020.83109.
    36. Sari, M. P., Kiswanto, Rahmadani, L. V., Khairunnisa, H., & Pamungkas, I. D. (2020). Detection fraudulent financial reporting and corporate governance mechanisms using fraud diamond theory of the property and construction sectors in Indonesia. Humanities and Social Sciences Reviews, 8(3), 1065–1072. https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2020.83109.
    37. Sarna, N. J., Rithen, F. A., Jui, U. S., Belal, S., Amin, A., Oishee, T. K., & Islam, A. K. M. M. (2025). AI Driven Fraud Detection Models in Financial Networks: A Review. Ieee Access.
    38. Suhartini, D., Azmiyanti, R., & Putri, S. Y. (2023). Whistleblowing Intention in Accounting Students with Locus of Control as a Moderating Variable. Journal of Economics, Business, & Accountancy Ventura, 25(3), 288. https://doi.org/10.14414/jebav.v25i3.3257.
    39. Thamlim, W., & Reskino. (2023). Fraudulent Financial Reporting with Fraud Pentagon Perspective: The Role of Corporate Governance as Moderator. American Journal of Humanities and Social Science Resesarch (AJHSSR), 07(01), 18–38.
    40. Todorović, Z., Todorović, B., & Tomaš, D. (2020). The role of internal audit in the fight against cyber crime. EMC REVIEW-ECONOMY AND MARKET COMMUNICATION REVIEW, 20(2), 514–529. https://doi.org/10.7251/EMC2002514T.
    41. Vousinas, G. L. (2019). Advancing theory of fraud: The S.C.O.R.E. Model. CA Magazine-Chartered Accountant, 136(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-12-2017-0128.
    42. Wahyudi, S., Achmad, T., & Pamungkas, I. D. (2019). Whistleblowing System and Fraud Early Warning System on Village Fund Fraud: The Indonesian Experience. International Journal of Financial Research, 10(6), 211. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijfr.v10n6p211.
    43. Westland, J. C. (2022). A comparative study of frequentist vs Bayesian A/B testing in the detection of E-commerce fraud. Journal of Electronic Business & Digital Economics, 1(1/2), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEBDE-07-2022-0020.
    44. Widnyana, I. W., & Widyawati, S. R. (2022). Role of forensic accounting in the diamond model relationship to detect the financial statement fraud. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147- 4478), 11(6), 402–409. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v11i6.1924.
    45. Wolfe, D. T., & Hermanson, D. R. (2004). The Fraud Diamond : Considering the Four Elements of Fraud: Certified Public Accountant. The CPA Journal, 74(12), 38–42.
    46. Wulandari, R., & Maulana, A. (2022). Institutional Ownership as Moderation Variable of Fraud Triangle on Fraudulent Financial Statement. Jurnal ASET (Akuntansi Riset), 14(2), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.17509/jaset.v14i2.44183.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Maharani, A. N. A., & Pamungkas, I. D. . (2025). Digital Transformation and Fraud Challenges: Cybersecurity Analysis in Indonesian State-Owned Enterprises Using The Heptagon Framework. International Journal of Accounting and Economics Studies, 12(8), 695-703. https://doi.org/10.14419/0a71t839