Systematic Literature Review: The Influence of Fraud Accounting in Corruption Crimes on Prosecutorial Demands with Behavioral Judgment as a Moderating Variable

Abstract

This review examines how fraud accounting evidence in corruption cases affects prosecutorial sentencing demands, and how behavioral judgment factors (e.g. cognitive biases, moral perceptions) may moderate this relationship. Forensic accounting plays a key role in uncovering financial irregularities in corruption schemes. Such evidence often informs prosecutors’ charging decisions and recommended penalties. However, decision-makers’ judgments – shaped by biases and heuristics – can influence how evidence is interpreted and applied. We systematically searched academic databases (Scopus, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar) for 2005–2025 studies on forensic accounting in corruption, prosecutorial decision-making, and judgment/behavioral factors. Twenty-five empirical and conceptual sources met inclusion criteria. The literature shows that forensic accountants uncover anomalies (e.g. falsified ledgers, unusual transactions) that support corruption charges. Prosecutors typically seek harsher sentences for serious financial crimes. although sentencing recommendations vary with guidelines and case context. Cognitive research indicates that confirmation bias and other heuristics can skew evidence evaluation, potentially altering prosecutorial choices. However, few studies explicitly link forensic evidence, prosecutorial demands, and behavioral moderators.