Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss that in an uncontrolled business environment public companies' resources may be abused to fund other group companies by their management. Design/methodology/approach The paper has been designed on fraud theory. The theory has been developed on interviews with key management personnel, financial analysis, audit tests and gathering the facts on each step. Findings The paper concludes that in an uncontrolled financial market, owners, executives and statutory company auditors acting in harmony may break the financial rules, statutory obligations and convert a healthy public company into bankruptcy by means of milking its resources to other group companies on unfeasible projects or on individual pleasures. Practical implications Auditors both internal and external should pay attention to intragroup transactions. Companies, partially or wholly owned by the public might be under the influence of owner/executives. Here, it is not only the government interests as tax or social insurance, but also the shareholders' interests are at stake. Social implications Resources are scarce, especially in developing countries. The public's savings must be sourced to feasible projects in trustworthy hands, otherwise public's trust is shaken which will deter potential shareholders to invest in capital markets, and consequently these negative repercussions will affect the whole community. Originality/value The case that the paper covers reflects the author's own audit experiences as an ex‐auditor. The names of the companies have been changed but not the essence of events. It is believed that the paper will shed light onto the path of the reader who might be an external or an internal or a statutory auditor or a manager of a company who might be involved in similar situations.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".