|
Business Literature Review格式范文-商业欺诈的原因、检测和解决方案。本文是一篇留学生商业管理方向文献综述Literature Review格式范文。主要内容是讲述在次贷危机之前的早期阶段，人们曾假设房价只会上涨。再加上借贷过多和财务模型有缺陷，这导致借款人陷入高风险抵押贷款。这些借款人有资格获得几乎没有文件的抵押贷款，即使是信用不良的个人也有资格成为次级借款人（没有收入，没有工作，没有资产）。本篇Literature Review通过一系列文献资料总结了这场危机的后果是相当大的：从美国住房的非法止赎、投资贬值到股东信任的完全丧失。然而，主要的大型金融机构，尤其是华尔街，尚未被追究其不法行为的责任。事实上，除了迄今为止涉及这些金融机构低级别员工的两个例外情况外，没有进行真正的刑事起诉。下面就通过这篇Literature Review格式范文，一起来学习下Literature Review怎么写，并掌握Literature Review写作技巧。
INTRODUCTION 引言 In the early phase preceding the subprime mortgage crisis, the assumption was made that home prices would only go up. Coupled with too much borrowing and flawed financial modelling, this caused borrowers to get into high-risk mortgages. These borrowers qualified for mortgages with little documentation and even individuals with bad credit could qualify as subprime borrowers (no income, no jobs, no assets). The consequences of this crisis were considerable: from the wrongful foreclosures of American housings, the devaluation of investments to a complete loss of shareholders’ trust[1]. However, the main big financial institutions, and especially Wall Street, have not yet been held accountable for their wrongdoings. No real criminal prosecutions were in fact made but for two exceptions to date concerning low-echelon employees of these financial institutions.[2] This review assesses the different causes of fraud and presents models built by researchers to help detecting fraud in a first part. In a second part, it analyses the complex nature of the financial system and provides insights on the difficulty to identify a unique, single culprit in the financial sector. Finally, the third part of this review presents potential remedies to avoid fraudulent activities. 这篇Literature Review评估了欺诈的不同原因，并在第一部分介绍了研究人员为帮助检测欺诈而建立的模型。在第二部分中，它分析了金融系统的复杂性，并深入了解了在金融部门识别一个独特的单一罪魁祸首的困难。最后，本审查的第三部分提出了避免欺诈活动的潜在补救措施。 Part 1: Assessment of corporate failure and fraud 第1部分：对公司失败和欺诈行为的评估 This first part addresses the fundamental causes of fraudulent activities and presents the models of detecting fraud. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, fraud consists of “deceitful practice or wilful device, resorted to with intent to deprive another of his right, or in some manner to do him and injury. As distinguished from negligence, it is always positive, intentional”[3]. Not only is fraud deceitful in nature, but is also the source of instability in competitive financial markets[4]. 第一部分论述了欺诈活动的根本原因，并提出了检测欺诈的模型。根据《布莱克法律词典》，欺诈包括“欺诈行为或故意手段，意图剥夺他人权利，或以某种方式伤害他人。与疏忽不同，欺诈总是积极的、故意的”。欺诈不仅具有欺骗性，而且也是竞争性金融市场不稳定的根源。 Causes 原因 When researchers examine the possible causes of disruptive behaviours, they all confirm an evident breakdown of social norms, leading to an increase of criminal activities in financial organisations. Researches conducted by Bahram Soltani (2007) helps identifying six main areas, where unethical behaviours arise eventually. The first area describes managerial misconduct in a corporate ethical climate. Bazerman and Tenbrunsel (2011)[5] describe this phenomenon as a “bounded ethicality” referring to the existence of blind spots individuals use to differentiate themselves from a broader social context. Corporate misconducts should not be limited to the responsibility of single individuals, but rather that the organisation should be held accountable for their misbehaviours. The Ethical Climate Theory endeavours to explain managers’ wrongs and the relevant measures of actions that should be undertaken to identify motives, attitudes and rationalisation of employers when fraud is present in the organisation. 当研究人员研究破坏性行为的可能原因时，他们都证实了社会规范的明显崩溃，导致金融组织中犯罪活动的增加。Bahram Soltani进行的研究有助于确定最终出现不道德行为的六个主要领域。第一个领域描述了企业道德环境中的管理不当行为。Bazerman和Tenbrunsel将这种现象描述为一种“有限的伦理学”，指的是个人用来将自己与更广泛的社会背景区分开来的盲点的存在。公司的不当行为不应仅限于单个个人的责任，而应追究组织对其不当行为的责任。道德气候理论试图解释管理者的错误，以及当组织中存在欺诈行为时，应采取的相关行动措施，以确定雇主的动机、态度和合理化。 The second area, particularly relevant to Soltani, is the way executives and managers lead their organisation. John Bogle (2005) argues that there is a new type of capitalism in our societies: the “managerial capitalism“[6]. According to him, there is a link between managerial capitalism and the decline or even the loss of ethical convictions and behaviours in business-like practices. Environmental factors such as Bubble Economy and Market Pressure constitute another possible area of unethical blind spots for fraud. Two areas of concerns relate to, on one part, the accountability, control mechanisms, internal auditing, and corporate governance and, on a second part, to the personal interest of the organisation, seen as perceived incentives for fraud. With the recent financial crisis, there has been a huge expectation gap between the management of the firm and their investors. There is an obvious lack of internal control that need to be supervised. Wall Street and other corresponding financial institutions virtually possess the perfect set up for criminogenic environment. For example, the major Credit Rating Agencies such as Moody’s, Fitch and the Standard & Poor’s are given little regulation, mostly because of their importance (Mayer, D., Cava, A., & Baird, C., 2014)[7]. 第二个领域，特别是与索尔塔尼相关的领域，是高管和经理领导组织的方式。John Bogle认为，在我们的社会中存在一种新型资本主义：“管理资本主义”据他说，管理资本主义与商业行为中道德信念和行为的衰落甚至丧失之间存在联系。泡沫经济和市场压力等环境因素构成了欺诈的另一个不道德盲点。两个关注领域一方面涉及问责制、控制机制、内部审计和公司治理，另一方面涉及组织的个人利益，被视为欺诈的动机。随着最近的金融危机，该公司的管理层和投资者之间存在着巨大的期望差距。显然缺乏需要监督的内部控制。华尔街和其他相应的金融机构实际上拥有完美的犯罪环境。例如，穆迪、惠誉和标准普尔等主要信用评级机构几乎没有受到监管，主要是因为它们的重要性。 b. Detecting Fraud 检测欺诈 This part presents models proposed by different authors to detect fraudulent activities. Financial Fraud leads to important financial losses for a firm and undermines investors’ trust towards the institution. Kirkos et al. (2007)[8] stresses three main reasons why it is difficult to detect fraudulent activities: lack of knowledge about fraud, lack of expertise, and finally the corporate executives deliberately hide potential tools to detect fraud. 本篇Literature Review的这部分介绍了不同作者提出的检测欺诈活动的模型。财务欺诈会导致公司遭受重大财务损失，并破坏投资者对该机构的信任。Kirkos等人强调了难以发现欺诈活动的三个主要原因：缺乏对欺诈的了解，缺乏专业知识，最后是公司高管故意隐藏潜在的工具来检测欺诈。 The first model is called the Fraud Triangle Framework , which is an integral component of ISA 240 of IFAC, SAS 99, and PCAOB-AU Section 316.6 (or, the Classical Fraud Theory), describes three main conditions for fraud to take place (Soltani, 2014). The first element is incentive, which describes the reasons of committing fraud, includes excessive pressure. The second element relates to opportunity, which constitutes the available blind spots for management to overturn internal and external financial reporting controls. The last condition explores the attitudes, or the set of characteristics, that allow individuals to act dishonestly. 第一个模型被称为欺诈三角框架，它是IFAC、SAS 99和PCAOB-AU的ISA 240的组成部分。第316.6节（或经典欺诈理论）描述了发生欺诈的三个主要条件。第一个要素是激励，它描述了实施欺诈的原因，包括过度的压力。第二个因素与机会有关，机会是管理层推翻内部和外部财务报告控制的可用盲点。最后一个条件探讨了允许个人不诚实行为的态度或一系列特征。 However, many researchers have criticised the ability of the Triangular Framework to deter and prevent fraud, because of its narrow approach. By assessing fraud solely on these three conditions is the perfect lay out for fraud to happen again. In addition, researchers have also observed that not all fraudulent activities fall in these categories: ”…All the predator seeks is an opportunity. The predator requires no pressure and needs no rationalization” (Dorminey et al. 2010, pp. 20-21)[9]. 然而，许多研究人员批评了三角框架阻止和防止欺诈的能力，因为它的方法很狭隘。仅根据这三个条件来评估欺诈行为，是欺诈再次发生的完美安排。此外，研究人员还观察到，并非所有的欺诈活动都属于这些类别：“……捕食者所寻求的只是一个机会。捕食者不需要压力，也不需要合理化”。 They have been several models already established over the past two decades and more to detect fraud at its core. However, the model that brings the highest accuracy and reliability in terms of fraud is the Financial Fraud Detection Model based on the Random Forest test. This model is built on the previous models of Hansen (1996) and Kirkos et al. (2007) with three sections: The Decision Tree (DT), Neural Networks (NN), and the Bayesian Network (BBN). Among these three approaches, results showed that the BBN has the highest accuracy in predicting fraudulent practices. Abbott and Parker (2000) also look at the relationship between auditors’ meetings with corporate executives. It shows that these two variables are good indicators for the interpretation and regression of fraud. 它们是在过去20多年中已经建立的几个模型，以检测其核心的欺诈行为。然而，在欺诈方面带来最高准确性和可靠性的模型是基于随机森林测试的金融欺诈检测模型。该模型建立在Hansen和Kirkos等人之前的模型基础上，分为三个部分：决策树、神经网络和贝叶斯网络。在这三种方法中，结果表明，BBN在预测欺诈行为方面具有最高的准确性。Abbott和Parker还研究了审计师与公司高管会议之间的关系。这表明，这两个变量是解释和回归欺诈的良好指标。 Part 2: Accountability of individuals vs. system 第二部分：个人责任与制度责任 The purpose of this section is to understand whether holding some individuals accountable for their misconducts would solve the issue of fraud or if the problem is the simple result of long-lasting flaws in the system. Moreover, it is important to understand why prosecutions of wrongdoers are so hard to make. Literature Review范文通过本节的目的是了解让一些人为自己的不当行为负责是否会解决欺诈问题，或者这个问题是否只是系统中长期缺陷的简单结果。此外，重要的是要理解为什么起诉违法者如此困难。 Accountability 责任 Even up to now, the financial crisis still shows that the risk undertaken by some large institution undermine the whole financial system: the influence of strong neoliberal interests and ideas compromises the awareness of systemic risks. This issue seems to follow a predicted cycle referred to as the Cyclical or Polanyian model. The model argues that the financial crisis was the results of years of market-friendly regulation to very restrictive forms of regulations, which led to the current post crisis meltdown. (Block, 2011; Streeck,2012). The authors endeavours to show that elites are not self-centred and governed by corruptive incentives; but rather that they have a strong incentive to maintain stability. Foucault’s late work shows that neoliberalism brings uncertainty at the heart of governance practices. 即使到目前为止，金融危机仍然表明，一些大型机构承担的风险破坏了整个金融体系：强大的新自由主义利益和思想的影响损害了对系统性风险的认识。这个问题似乎遵循了一个被称为周期或波兰尼模型的预测周期。该模型认为，金融危机是多年来对市场友好的监管对非常严格的监管形式的结果，这导致了当前的危机后崩溃。作者努力表明，精英们不是以自我为中心的，并受到腐败动机的支配；相反，他们有保持稳定的强烈动机。福柯的晚期作品表明，新自由主义在治理实践的核心带来了不确定性。 The concept of normalisation puts forwards two important aspects: uncertainty seen as a component of norms and order, rather than as an external limit to knowledge (Kessler, 2009)[10]. Thus, speculation involves reputation and impression management. The second aspect is the hierarchisation of norms is an on-going process. Banks never eradicate uncertainty because they add new sources of risks. According to Minsky, CBs do not represent an external form of regulations but that is itself banking and subject to similar logic of normalisations. Systematic risk is to deny “the too big to fail” logic as an integral part of neoliberal governance. 规范化的概念提出了两个重要方面：不确定性被视为规范和秩序的组成部分，而不是知识的外部限制。因此，投机涉及声誉和印象管理。第二个方面是规范的分级是一个持续的过程。银行从不消除不确定性，因为它们增加了新的风险来源。明斯基表示，CB并不代表一种外部形式的监管，但它本身就是银行业，并遵循类似的正常化逻辑。系统性风险是否定“大到不能倒”的逻辑，将其作为新自由主义治理的一个组成部分。 Difficult Implementations of Prosecutions 难以实施的起诉 It is often seen as hard to make individuals held accountable in the court of law and prosecutes the big financial institutions responsible for lying to the public. 人们通常认为，很难让个人在法庭上承担责任，并起诉对公众撒谎的大型金融机构。 The structure of financial institutions and the way they operate are complex in nature. Another important aspect is that the justice system purposely see these misconducts as real crimes. The next factor refers to the “regulatory capture“[11], which implies that the regulation somehow favours the regulated. Under investigations, regulations protecting potential wrongdoers are too difficult to counteract. Budget limitations constitute another potential reason for making prosecutions harder to be conducted. Moreover, financial markets are assumed to be self-regulated and efficient. This assumption reduces the level of commitment or willingness to punish fraudulent activities in these markets. 金融机构的结构及其运作方式本质上是复杂的。另一个重要方面是，司法系统故意将这些不当行为视为真正的犯罪。下一个因素是“监管捕获”，这意味着该法规在某种程度上有利于被监管方。在调查中，保护潜在违法者的法规太难抵消。预算限制是使起诉更加困难的另一个潜在原因。此外，金融市场被认为是自我监管和高效的。这种假设降低了惩罚这些市场中欺诈活动的承诺或意愿水平。 Finally, financial institutions are given high levels of political protection and support, mainly due to their dominant involvement in political matters. 最后，金融机构得到了高度的政治保护和支持，主要是因为它们主要参与政治事务。 Part 3: Solutions to Fraudulent activities in the Financial Sector 第3部分：金融部门欺诈活动的解决方案 This part presents alternative models, laws and statutes that have been established to control and prevent fraudulent practices for happening. 通过Literature Review的本部分介绍了为控制和防止欺诈行为发生而制定的替代模式、法律和法规。 Global Business Integrity model 全球商业诚信模型 The Global Business Integrity model is an alternative framework balancing conflicts of interests between morality, human mature and capitalism.[12] This model attempts to provide a viable solution to stop the vicious cycles of instability and fraudulent practices in the financial sector. It is based on human science theory of morality and on four different quadrants: the community capitalism, the entrepreneurial capitalism, the regulatory capitalism and the investor capitalism (Petrick, 2009). Business integrity capacity is defined as the “aggregate individual and collective capability for repeated process alignment of economic, psycho-social, and moral awareness, deliberation, character.”[13] However, this model requires a new level of business integrity that financial institutions are willing to offer. Credit policy judgments will fail to prevail if one or more of these quadrants are over- or underemphasised. 全球商业诚信模型是一个平衡道德、人类成熟和资本主义之间利益冲突的替代框架。这一模式试图提供一个可行的解决方案，以制止金融部门不稳定和欺诈行为的恶性循环。它基于人类科学道德理论和四个不同的象限：社区资本主义、创业资本主义、监管资本主义和投资者资本主义。商业诚信能力被定义为“经济、心理、社会和道德意识、深思熟虑和性格的重复过程协调的个人和集体能力。”然而，这种模式需要金融机构愿意提供的新水平的商业诚信。如果其中一个或多个象限被过度强调或强调不足，信贷政策判断将无法获胜。 Laws 法律 There are virtually two ways to fight fraud in the financial sector: the mail or wire fraud, or securities fraud regulations.[14] The mail and wire fraud statutes are both widely used by the prosecution to prove that fraud is committed. The only difference between these two statutes is the means of transmitting/expressing fraudulent activities. This is probably one of the main federal government’s weapon to fight fraud, but is difficult to prove that fraud activities are operated just with these laws. References 参考文献 Konings, M. (2016). ‘Governing the system: Risk, finance, and neoliberal reason’, European Journal of International Relations, Vol (22,2), 268-288 Liu, C., Chan, Y., Hasnain, S., & Kazmi, A. (2015). ‘Financial Fraud Detection Model: Based on Random Forest’, International Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol (7), 178-188 Mayer, D., Cava, A., & Baird, C. (2014). ‘Crime and Punishment (or the Lack Thereof) for Financial Fraud in the Subprime Mortgage Meltdown: Reasons and Remedies for Legal and Ethical Lapses’, American Business Law Journal, Vol (51), 515-597 Petrick, J.A. (2009). ‘Towards Responsible Global Financial Risk Management: The Reckoning and Reform Recommendations’ Journal of Asia-Pacific Business Vol (3), 1-33 Petrick, J., & Quinn, J. (2001). ‘The Challenge of leadership accountability for integrity capacity as a strategic asset’, Journal of business Ethics, Vol (34), 331-343, Petrick, J., & Quinn, J. (2000). ‘The integrity capacity construct and moral progress in business’, Journal of business Ethics, Vol (34), 331-343 Pontell, H., Black, W., Geis, G. (2014). ‘Too big to fail, too powerful to jail? On the absence of criminal prosecutions after the 2008 financial meltdown’, Crime Law Soc Change, Vol (61), 1-13 Soltani, B. (2014). ‘The Anatomy of Corporate Fraud: A Comparative Analysis of High Proï¬le American and European Corporate Scandals’, Journal Business Ethics, Vol (120), 251-274 打击金融部门欺诈的方法实际上有两种：邮件或电报欺诈，或证券欺诈法规。检方广泛使用邮件和电报欺诈法规来证明存在欺诈行为。这两个法规之间的唯一区别是传播/表达欺诈活动的方式。这可能是联邦政府打击欺诈的主要武器之一，但很难证明欺诈活动是根据这些法律进行的。本站提供各国各专业Literature Review范文，以及Literature Review写作辅导，如有需要可咨询本平台 |
 |
|||
| 网站地图 |
