Fraudulent money transfers: a case from Turkey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to show to the public in general and auditors in particular that the money deposited to the banks that operate in an uncontrolled medium can be misused by owners of the banks. Design/methodology/approach The paper has been designed based on a fraud theory. The theory has been developed on financial analysis and audit tests. The theory then revised and the existence of a bogus company and its intermediary role in the fraud scheme has been proven. Findings The paper explores that banks controlled by unreliable owners can lead to misuse of public's funds in accordance with the directives of the owner. Public's money can be transferred to other group companies in an illegal manner‐in excessive amounts and never returned to the bank by means of applying different accounting techniques. Practical implications Auditors, who may audit group companies that include a bank or banks with deposit receiving and lending rights should pay attention to the transactions between the group's bank and the other group companies. The lending may be excessive in amount and/or never paid back and various accounting malpractices may exist. Originality/value The case that the paper covers reflects the author's own audit experiences. The names of the companies have been changed but not the essence of the events. From this perspective it sheds light onto the path of an auditor who happens to be in a similar situation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it