Religiosity as an Ethical Infrastructure for Preventing Fraud in Digital Business: Integrating Interfaith, Legal, and Forensic Accounting Perspectives

Authors

  • Robertus Suraji Universitas Bhayangkara Jakarta Raya
  • Lintang Putri Estiarto Universitas Terbuka
  • Istianingsih Sastrodiharjo Universitas Bhayangkara Jakarta Raya https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6144-0371

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.38035/jlhr.v1i2.739

Keywords:

religiosity, digital business, forensic accounting, fraud prevention, law

Abstract

Digital business expands access and efficiency while simultaneously creating new opportunities for fraud through platform opacity, automated decisions, data asymmetry, and cross-border transactions. Existing studies commonly examine religiosity, legal compliance, digital governance, and forensic accounting separately, leaving their complementary relationship underdeveloped. This article aims to formulate an inclusive ethical governance model that positions religiosity as an internal moral infrastructure and combines it with law, organizational controls, and digital forensic accounting. An integrative literature review and normative juridical analysis were applied to recent scholarly works, professional standards, and Indonesian regulations, supported by foundational behavioral theories. The synthesis shows that intrinsic and inclusive religiosity can strengthen moral awareness and inhibit fraud rationalization, but symbolic religiosity cannot substitute for enforceable controls. Effective prevention requires the simultaneous operation of value internalization, accountable digital governance, privacy-respecting analytics, protected reporting channels, and evidence-preserving investigation procedures. The article proposes the Religious Integrity–Forensic Accounting in Digital Ecosystems model, which links moral prevention, structural constraint, technological detection, and corrective response. Its novelty lies in treating religiosity neither as a ceremonial variable nor a stand-alone control, but as one component of a pluralistic, rights-based, and auditable anti-fraud architecture.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 432–443. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021212

Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. (2024). Occupational fraud 2024: A report to the nations. ACFE. https://www.acfe.com/en-us/-/media/files/acfe/pdfs/rttn/2024/2024-report-to-the-nations.pdf

Cressey, D. R. (1953). Other people’s money: A study in the social psychology of embezzlement. Free Press.

Darsono, D., Ratmono, D., Putri, E. R. P., Cahyonowati, N., & Lee, S. (2024). An empirical analysis of asset misappropriation fraud during the COVID-19 crisis. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 22(3), 314–325. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.22(3).2024.25

Financial Services Authority of the Republic of Indonesia. (2024). Financial Services Authority Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 12 of 2024 on the implementation of anti-fraud strategies for financial services institutions [Peraturan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan Republik Indonesia Nomor 12 Tahun 2024 tentang Penerapan Strategi Anti Fraud bagi Lembaga Jasa Keuangan]. https://www.ojk.go.id/en/regulasi/Pages/12-Tahun-2024-Penerapan-Strategi-Anti-Fraud-bagi-Lembaga-Jasa-Keuangan.aspx

International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. (2025). ISA 240 (Revised): The auditor’s responsibilities relating to fraud in an audit of financial statements. IFAC. https://www.iaasb.org/publications/isa-240-revised-auditor-s-responsibilities-relating-fraud-audit-financial-statements

International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants. (2023). Final pronouncement: Technology-related revisions to the Code. IFAC. https://www.ethicsboard.org/publications/final-pronouncement-technology-related-revisions-code

International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants. (2025). 2025 handbook of the International Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (including International Independence Standards). IFAC. https://www.ethicsboard.org/publications/2025-handbook-international-code-ethics-professional-accountants

Kontesa, M., Brahmana, R. K., & You, H. W. (2024). National culture, religiosity, and audited financial statements of small-scale MNCs. Pacific Accounting Review, 36(2), 211–233. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAR-10-2022-0162

Koufie, S., Tetteh, L. A., Kwarteng, A., & Fosu, R. A. (2025). The impact of ethical accounting practices on financial reporting quality: The moderating role of religiosity. International Journal of Ethics and Systems, 41(4), 973–1002. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-01-2024-0004

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2024). Revised recommendation of the Council on artificial intelligence (OECD/LEGAL/0449). OECD. https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0449

Pianoschi, A., & Mierlita, S. (2025). Revising ISA240 in a digital world: The sociomaterial perspective on fraud, technology, and stakeholder influence. Digital Finance, 7, 921–947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42521-025-00139-2

Republic of Indonesia. (2008). Law Number 11 of 2008 on electronic information and transactions, as most recently amended by Law Number 1 of 2024 [Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik sebagaimana terakhir diubah dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2024]. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/274494/uu-no-1-tahun-2024

Republic of Indonesia. (2022). Law Number 27 of 2022 on personal data protection [Undang-Undang Nomor 27 Tahun 2022 tentang Pelindungan Data Pribadi]. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/229798/uu-no-27-tahun-2022

Tiron-Tudor, A., Faragalla, W. A., & Pianoschi, A. (2025). The role of the accountancy professionals in detecting and preventing fraud, in a digital landscape: A systematic literature review. Digital Finance, 7, 745–786. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42521-025-00138-3

Ul Hassan, S. W., Kiran, S., Gul, S., Khatatbeh, I. N., & Zainab, B. (2025). The perception of accountants/auditors on the role of corporate governance and information technology in fraud detection and prevention. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 23(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-05-2023-0235

Weaver, G. R., & Agle, B. R. (2002). Religiosity and ethical behavior in organizations: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 77–97. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2002.5922390

Wibowo, A. S., Istianah, I., Sari, N. P., Rakhman, F., & Septiari, D. (2026). Does organizational integrity matter in enhancing financial reporting quality? Empirical evidence from local governments in Indonesia. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 22(4), 723–747. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAOC-09-2024-0321

Wolfe, D. T., & Hermanson, D. R. (2004). The fraud diamond: Considering the four elements of fraud. The CPA Journal, 74(12), 38–42.

Published

2026-06-08

How to Cite

Suraji, R., Estiarto, L. P., & Sastrodiharjo, I. (2026). Religiosity as an Ethical Infrastructure for Preventing Fraud in Digital Business: Integrating Interfaith, Legal, and Forensic Accounting Perspectives. Journal of Law and Humanities Review, 1(2), 94–105. https://doi.org/10.38035/jlhr.v1i2.739