Determinants of Financial Statement Fraud in Perspective Hexagon Fraud Theory

The purpose of this research is to analyze the effect of the hexagon fraud theory; stimulus, opportunity, rationalization, capability, ego, collusion, company size on financial statement fraud in energy sector companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange in 2016-2020 us-ing the F-Score model as a measurement. This study uses a sample of 39 energy sector companies with a total of 186 observations. This study uses multiple regression analysis techniques. The results of this study indicate that the stimulus (pressure) in terms of financial targets and external pressure and opportunity in terms of the nature of industry affects financial statement fraud. While rationalization in terms of change in auditors, capability in terms of change in directors, ego (arrogance) in terms of CEO duality, collusion in terms of market performance ratios, and company size have no effect on financial statement fraud.


Introduction
The performance of a company can be reflected in the financial statements. If the financial report is considered positive for users, then the company is considered to have good performance (Kusumawati & Khoir, 2018). The most crucial thing in the company's management accountability to stakeholders is the financial report (Siswantoro, 2020). The importance of information in a company's financial report will encourage management to continue to improve the performance of the company in order to maintain the company's existence through financial reports (Kusumawati & Khoir, 2018). This illustrates the positive impact of financial statements that describe the company's performance. While the negative impact is that in some cases when the company experiences bad conditions, the company will try to cover up or disguise the actual condition of the company. Of course this can be detrimental to stakeholders or users of financial statements.
Fraud according to ACFE (Association of Certified Fraud Examiners) is an intentional or conscious crime act in the form of mistakes and even fraud committed by individuals or groups that have an adverse impact on the individuals or entities involved (Murdock, 2018).
The number of factors that can influence the occurrence of financial statement fraud makes this fraud difficult to detect. Donald R. Cressey (1950) conducted research on the reasons why individuals/groups commit fraud and the theory is called the triangle fraud theory. According to Cressey, the triangle fraud theory consists of three elements, namely 1) pressure 2) opportunity 3) rationalization or justification (Handayani et al., 2021). According to Wolfe & Hermanson (2004) states that action is also influenced by capability. The theory later became known as the diamond fraud theory. Over time, problems regarding fraud became increasingly complex, so in 2012 a new theory emerged, namely Crowe's fraud pentagon theory. The theory states that there are five factors that can encourage fraud, namely pressure, opportunity, rationalization, competence, and arrogance. Then in 2019, Crowe's fraud pentagon theory was developed into the hexagon theory developed by Vousinas. Hexagon theory as a form of development from the previous theory, namely the pentagon theory, explains that there are six elements that can encourage fraud, namely adding indicators of collusion (Banking & Indonesia, 2021).
The case of fraudulent financial statements in mining companies in Indonesia that occurred at PT Hanson International Tbk. Companies operating in the property sector and also in the coal mining sector are suspected of manipulating financial statements. This is evidenced by the discovery in the form of records related to the sale of ready-to-build lots worth Rp. 732 billion, which made the company's revenue increase sharply. OJK announcement No. PENG-3/PM.1/2019 stated that PT Hanson International Tbk was proven to have violated the disclosure of financial statements.
In previous studies there were inconsistent results. Therefore, to obtain clear results, the researchers combined several variables from the three studies. So the results of this study are more comprehensive when compared to previous studies. This study also adds firm size as a control variable, as a form of development from previous research. Firm size was chosen as the control variable because according to SAS No. 99 firm size is a factor to detect financial statement fraud.
This study uses Energy Sector Companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange in 2016-2020 as research samples, where in previous research studies on the topic of financial statement fraud and hexagon fraud were mostly conducted on manufacturing companies and property and real estate companies. According to the 2019 SFI (Indonesian Fraud Survey) the mining sector is in the third position for the industry category that bears the impact of the highest losses caused by fraud, so researchers are interested in using energy sector companies as samples in this study.

Literature Review Agency Theory
Agency theory was developed by Jensen & Meckling (1976). Agency theory arises when there is a conflict of interest or information asymmetry between the principal and the agent. The information asymmetry in question is an imbalance between the information held by the principal and the agent. The management as an agent certainly has more information about the condition of the company than the stakeholders or principals because in practice the management directly manages the company's operations every day. That way, not a few agents hide some information from the principal. Some information that according to the agent does not need to be conveyed to the principal will be hidden in the financial statements (Maheswari et al., 2021).
In addition, when the financial statements are able to describe the company's performance well, the principal will compensate the agent for its performance. The amount of compensation depends on how well the company performs. Therefore, when the company suffers a loss or experiences a bad condition, the agent will try in any way, including committing fraud so that the financial statements are good in the eyes of the principal so that the agent is able to obtain large compensation. To resolve this conflict, it takes an independent party who does not have any interest in the company, namely an auditor (Natalia & Samuel, 2019). This agency theory discusses the agent relationship that arises when the principal employs another party for a service and gives authority to decision making. The service in question is the service of auditing the company's financial statements (Ari & Putra, 2018 Fraud has many different definitions by various parties. According to (Kusumawati & Khoir, 2018) fraud is all actions in the form of deception, concealment and even illegal breaches of trust committed by a person or an organization with the aim of obtaining assets or wealth, avoiding payments for business losses and even obtaining personal business benefits. . According to (Handayani et al., 2021) fraud is an action that can harm a company or entity and is profitable for the perpetrators of fraud, of course, the action is against the law. Financial statement fraud according to the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants in (Mangeka & Rahayu, 2015) is an act of intentionally eliminating substantial evidence so that the resulting financial statements do not have credibility because there are material misstatements.
Fraud is an intentional act. It is clear that fraud is very different from actions that are carried out unintentionally. For example, if there is an error in recording a transaction by someone accidentally then the action cannot be called an act of fraud. In contrast, if the financial statements are engineered by someone knowingly and deliberately aiming to attract the interest of stakeholders or investors, it is clearly an act of fraud. Fraud or fraud in financial statements in the form of financial statements that are not in accordance with applicable accounting standards and the negligence is done intentionally. The result of this negligence has an impact on economic decisions taken by users of financial statements because the negligence is material (Faradiza, 2019).
The latest theory regarding fraud was put forward in 2019 by Vousinas, namely the hexagon fraud theory and the basis for this theory is the triangle fraud theory proposed by Cressey. Vousinas stated that there are six indicators of a person committing fraud, namely stimulus (pressure), opportunity, rationalization, capability, ego and collusion. According to Vousinas, collusion is able to influence someone to commit fraud. Collusion is a conspiracy or agreement between two or more parties to do something that can harm the other party.

Hypotheses
The benchmark to describe a manager's performance is his success in achieving predetermined financial targets. Therefore, a manager will be under pressure to do his best to achieve the target. The measuring tool for financial targets or financial targets is the return of assets (ROA). To show how efficiently the use of assets regarding operational performance is often measured by the return of assets. According to Dendawijaya (2005) in (M. R. Sari & Rofi, 2020) states that ROA can be a benchmark for companies to gain overall profits. Profit for the company will always be the target in each period. According to Skousen et al, (2009) ROA is often used to assess manager performance. When the company's ROA value is high, the profits obtained by the company are also high and the company's position will be better in terms of asset use. It will also attract investors to invest in the company. The ROA value will increase if the management's performance also improves. This means that operational activities within the company have been running effectively and efficiently. However, when the targeted ROA value is higher but management has difficulty improving its performance, this will encourage management to commit fraud in financial statements.
The relation with agency theory is that the agent and the principal have different goals. Principal has a goal that is to get a high profit. Meanwhile, the agent has an interest in getting high incentives or bonuses from the principal for their performance. So agents tend to do anything for the sake of high profits generated by the company in order to satisfy the principal and then get a big bonus. According to research that has been conducted by (M. R. Sari & Rofi, 2020), (Faradiza & Suyanto, 2017) and (Faradiza, 2019) shows that financial targets have a positive effect on financial statement fraud. H1: Financial target has a positive effect on financial statement fraud.
Most companies experience high pressure from external parties. When a company needs capital or requires a source of financing to keep the company competitive, the company will make loans from third parties. This will make the company have obligations to external parties. When in a situation where the company Volume 2 | Number 2 | December | 2022 has difficulty paying its debts, the company will tend to commit fraud in order to cover it up in its financial statements (M. R. Sari & Rofi, 2020). When a company has a large amount of debt and the company's risk is also high, the company can be said to have a high leverage value. So that the lender or external party will be worried because the company may not be able to repay its debt. In these conditions the company will try to cover it up by committing fraud so that users of financial statements assume that the company is able to pay off its loans on time. Therefore, when the leverage number is high, the company is very likely to commit financial statement fraud (Fatkhurrizqi & Nahar, 2021).
Related to agency theory where there is a difference in interests between the management and the principal. For business development purposes, the principal will require the management to obtain additional capital from third parties or external parties. So that not a few of the management feel pressured because of the principal's demands. So in order to look good and meet the demands or requirements of external parties, the company's management carries out financial statement fraud. Based on previous research conducted by (M. R. Sari & Rofi, 2020), (Stamler et al., 2014) and (Faradiza & Suyanto, 2017) stated that external pressure significantly affects financial statement fraud. H2: External pressure has a significant effect on financial statement fraud.
The industrial environment of a company is something that investors consider. When companies in an industry have ideal and good conditions, investors will be more interested in investing their capital in companies with such conditions. To create these good conditions, not a few of the company's management carried out financial statement fraud (Kusumawati & Khoir, 2018). The company will be exposed to significant risk when the company involves an estimate or judgment. The company will use an estimate or judgment for several accounts in the financial statements such as inventory accounts and spare accounts an uncollectible debt. This is an opportunity or opportunity for company managers or a party to commit fraud because the two accounts are determined only based on estimates or estimates. For example, a company that has inventory warehouses spread across several locations will be vulnerable to financial statement fraud because the inventory may be obsolete. The company's attempt to cover the inventory is by committing fraud.
In relation to agency theory, when the agent reaches the target, the principal will give a bonus to the company. When the target is not achieved, it is very possible for the agent to commit fraud in order to get a bonus from the principal. According to Summer & Sweeney (1998) in (Kusumawati & Khoir, 2018) said that using the ratio of changes in total inventory and also the ratio of changes in total receivables can be a tool to measure the nature of industry. When the ratio of changes in total inventory has a high value, then the possibility of financial statements farud in the company is also higher. Based on research conducted by (Kusumawati & Khoir, 2018), (Mulyaningsih & Merawati, 2018) and (Yesiariani & Rahayu, 2017) stated that the nature of industry has a positive effect on financial statement fraud. H3: Opportunity has a positive effect on financial statement fraud.
The auditor has a role as a supervisor in a company. Detection of fraudulent financial statements is the duty of an auditor. Auditors who have long enough time in a company will find it easier to detect or find fraud because the auditor has an in-depth understanding of the company's conditions. The old auditor will easily detect fraud. Therefore, the company will change its auditors to hide the fraud it has committed. The new auditor does not fully understand the condition of the company, so the auditor takes a long time to detect fraud in the company. So that when the auditor change is carried out, the possibility of fraudulent financial statements also increases.
The relationship with agency theory is that the change of auditors or KAP aims to overcome or even prevent conflicts between agents and principals related to information asymmetry. However, in practice, the stress period occurs during a transition period when the auditor changes and this is the moment that is used by management to commit financial statement fraud. Based on research BAARJ 66 Volume 2 | Number 2 | December | 2022 conducted by (Mulyaningsih & Merawati, 2018), (Stamler et al., 2014) and (Mardianto & Tiono, 2019) shows that auditor change has a positive influence on financial statement fraud. H4: Rationalization has a positive effect on financial statement fraud. Ability or capability can show a person's capacity to commit fraud. The ability in question is a person's expertise to control social conditions that are able to benefit himself. Someone who commits fraud must have the ability to see how big the opportunity is and be able to take advantage of these opportunities to commit fraud (Jannah & Rasuli, 2021). According to Wolfe & Hermanson (2004) in (S. P. Sari & Nugroho, 2020) states that ability can be viewed from changes in directors. When there is a change of directors in the company, it is very possible that there is a conflict of interest. The impact of the change of directors shows that there are efforts by the company management to improve the performance of the previous directors and determine and change company policies. The purpose of the review is to expedite the fraudulent acts that he did.
Capability is closely related to agency theory because the board of directors as its agent does not guarantee that the actions taken by the agent are in accordance with the wishes of the principal. Even the actions of the directors as agents are for their own interests and harm the principal. Therefore, to prevent conflicts between agents and principals, the company must change directors. Based on research conducted by (S. P. Sari & Nugroho, 2020) and (Desviana et al., 2020) capability in terms of changes in directors has a positive effect on financial statement fraud. H5: Capability has a positive effect on financial statement fraud.
Someone with an attitude of arrogance or arrogance is very likely to commit acts of fraud. The arrogance or ego in question is the greedy attitude of someone who believes that internal control policies do not apply to him because he feels superior. One of the personalities possessed by someone who commits fraud is a selfish attitude. This is closely related to agency theory where the role of the CEO as an agent acts arbitrarily because of his superiority attitude. Even the company's internal control policies are not able to limit his actions because he feels he has the power as CEO (Jannah & Rasuli, 2021). According to (Kusumosari & Solikhah, 2021) the result of CEO duality is being able to make corporate governance worse because the supervisory function does not function because it is integrated with its own interests. CEO duality is manifested when there is dominance of power over an individual holding two positions at once in the company. The weakness of the supervisory function can be an opportunity for fraudulent actions to be carried out. So when there is CEO duality in a company, the possibility of fraudulent financial statements in the company is also higher. Based on research conducted by (Kusumosari & Solikhah, 2021) and (Kusumosari & Solikhah, 2021) shows that ego in terms of CEO duality has a positive effect on financial statement fraud. H6: Ego has a positive effect on financial statement fraud.
The definition of collusion or collusion according to Vousinas (2019) is an agreement to commit fraud or a conspiracy between two or more parties to commit an inappropriate action. For example, the agreement between the CEO and the manager to manipulate the financial statements. According to the KBBI, collusion means cooperation with bad connotations. According to Desviana et al (2020) in (Jannah & Rasuli, 2021) stated that when the company has a high level of collusion, it is very likely that there will be fraudulent actions within the company.
According to Alfarisi (2010) in (Jannah & Rasuli, 2021) collusion in a company can be viewed from the price cost margin (PCM) or market performance. According to Martin (2002) in (Jannah & Rasuli, 2021) when the market is with a high level of concentration, that is, if the company controls a percentage of the market share of the total market share and the level of profit earned is high, it is very likely that in that market there is collusion (market power). theory). Or maybe the companies in the market simply have a high level of efficiency (efficiency hypothesis), so the price they charge is way above marginal cost. Market performance includes innovation, profit and efficiency. When a company has good innovation Volume 2 | Number 2 | December | 2022 and shows good performance efficiency, the company will get incentives in the form of a position in the market, namely lower costs than other companies. The high level of concentration of a company allows the occurrence of collusion in setting prices, so that market participants with high concentration will get big profits as well. According to Assauri (2002) in (Jannah & Rasuli, 2021) policies made by the government support domestic companies with a high level of concentration so that they are able to generate large profits.
This is related to agency theory where there is a difference between agent and principal. The size of the company's profits is the main goal of the principal, of course, these profits are generated because of good and effective management performance so that they are able to get high profits. However, management gets these benefits by committing fraud as in the market performance described above. These two things are different between agent and principal. It can be concluded that the higher the market performance ratio in a company, the concentration of the company will increase so that the possibility of financial statement fraud is also higher. This is in line with research conducted by (S. P. Sari & Nugroho, 2020), (Desviana et al., 2020) and (Jannah & Rasuli, 2021) showing that collusion has a positive effect on financial statement fraud. H7: Collusion has a positive effect on financial statement fraud.
Companies with large sizes will have a greater opportunity to earn large profits as well. The high tax paid by the company depends on the profit earned. The higher the profit generated by the company, the higher the tax that must be paid by the company haan. This is not desired by most of the management of the company. So it is very possible if the management to commit fraud. In addition, large companies will try to show that the condition of the company is always in good condition with the aim of investors not withdrawing their capital. So when the company is not in good condition, the company's management will commit fraud, including in the financial statements. According to SAS 99 No. 37, one of the factors that influence the occurrence of financial statement fraud is the size of the company or firm size.

Method
The type of research used is quantitative research on energy sector companies listed on the IDX in 2016-2020. The sampling technique used purposive sampling method. This type of research is quantitative research because it uses numbers as variable indicators to analyze problems. The type of data used is secondary data. The data used in this study are the financial statements of energy sector companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange in 2016-2020. The data was obtained from www.idx.co.id.

No.
Criteria Quantity 1 Energy sector company listed on the IDX in 2016-2020. 66 2 Energy sector companies that did not issue financial reports as of December 31 during 2016-2020.
3 Energy sector companies whose annual reports do not end on December 31.
(2) 4 The company's financial statements that do not contain all the variables studied.

Operationalization of Variabels Variabel
Measurement Scale Financial statement fraud F-score = Accrual quality + Financial performance Dimana : RSST = ΔWC + ΔNCO + ΔFIN / average total assets WC = (current assets -current liability) NCO = (total assets -current assets -investment & advance) -(total liabilities -current liabilities -long term debt) FIN = (total investment -total liabilities) Average total assets = (beginning total assets + end total assets) / 2 Financial performance = change in receivable + change in inventories + change in cash sales + change in earnings The variable financial statement fraud as measured by the F-Score method with a sample of 186. Eterindo Wahanatama Tbk (2018)  Company size variable as measured by total assets with a sample of 186. The lowest value is 17.38 which is owned by Indo Straits Tbk (2020) and the highest value is 30.89 which is owned by Bukit Asam Tbk (2019)  The ego variable proxied by CEO duality was measured using a dummy variable. Of the 186 samples tested for the research year during 2016-2020, 94.1% of the samples had no CEO duality, meaning that there were no concurrent positions in the company (score 0) and the remaining 5.9% of the samples had CEO duality, which means that within the company CEO holds more than one position (score 1).

0,147 Normal
The normality test with Kolmogrov-Smirov produces an asymp sig value of 0.147 > 0.05, so it can be concluded that at the 95% confidence level the assumption of the normality distribution for the error variable is met. Volume  Based on the results of the autocorrelation test using the Durbin Watson test, it can be concluded that there is no autocorrelation. This is evidenced by the value of dU (1.8622) < DW (2.101) < (4-dU) (2.1497).

Coefficient of Determination Test
Model Adj R 2 FSF 0.539 This test produces an R2 value of 53.9%. This means that the independent variable is able to explain financial statement fraud as the dependent variable by 53.9% while the remaining 46.1% is explained by variables not included in this study.

Simultaneous test (F Test) Model
Fstat Sig Fstat FSF 28,072 0,000 Simultaneous test using the F test above shows that the value of sig Fstat (0.000) <0.05.
So the conclusion is the regression model in this study is fit or feasible to use.

Hypothesis Test (H1)
The first hypothesis (H1) in this study is the financial target which is a proxy for stimulus or pressure that has a positive effect on financial statement fraud. This study shows that H1 is accepted. Thus, it can be concluded that the stimulus proxied by the financial target as measured by ROA has a positive effect on financial statement fraud. The profit earned by the company becomes a benchmark for achieving the company's targets. According to (Nugraheni and Triatmoko 2017) when a company obtains a high ROA, it is considered that the company is able to earn high profits as well. When the company's target is set higher, it will make the management even more depressed. Because the management finds it difficult to achieve the ROA target and the management expects incentives when the ROA value is high, this will encourage management to commit financial statement fraud. Therefore, partially it can be said that the financial target has an effect on financial statement fraud.
The results of this study are in line with research conducted by (Kusumosari & Solikhah, 2021) (Anggono & Sakti, 2021) (Istiyanto & Yuyetta, 2021) that financial targets have a positive effect on financial statement fraud. However, this research is not in line with previous research conducted by (Jannah & Rasuli, 2021) (Utami et al., 2019) (Journal, 2019) which said that financial targets had no effect on financial statement fraud.

Hypothesis Test (H2)
The second hypothesis (H2) in this study is that external pressure is a proxy for stimulus or pressure that has a positive effect on financial statement fraud. This study shows that H1 is accepted. Thus, it can be concluded that the stimulus proxied by external pressure measured using leverage has a positive effect on financial statement fraud. If the leverage ratio of a company is high, it means that the company has a large risk as well as a large debt. When in a situation where the company has difficulty paying its debts, the company will tend to commit fraud in order to cover this in its financial statements in order to convince creditors that the company is able to pay off its debts. When the company's assets are smaller than the company's debt acquisition, it will be bad in the eyes of users of financial statements such as investors and creditors, then this condition will encourage company management to manipulate the financial statements so that the company still looks good in the eyes of users of financial statements.
The results of this study are in line with previous research conducted by (Jannah & Rasuli, 2021) (Anggono & Sakti, 2021) (Nurardi & Wijayanti, 2021) where external pressure as a proxy for the stimulus variable has a positive influence on fraud in financial statements. However, this research is not in line with previous research conducted by (Journal, 2019) (S. P. Sari & Nugroho, 2020) (Banking & Indonesia, 2021) which said that external pressure had no effect on financial statement fraud.

Hypothesis Test (H3)
The third hypothesis (H3) in this study is that opportunity as measured by the nature of industry has a positive effect on financial statement fraud. This study shows that H3 is accepted. Thus, it can be concluded that the opportunity measured using the nature of industry has a positive effect on financial statement fraud. When a company experiences poor or not ideal financial conditions, it will encourage management to manipulate the financial statements. The inventory account is the most vulnerable account to be used in fraudulent acts. Because the inventory account is an account that is prepared with an estimate. Inventory is one of the accounts in current assets that is very prone to fraud because this inventory account is liquid or easy to cash out. The inventory account in the company's financial statements usually has a significant amount so that it will greatly affect the balance sheet value as well as the profit and loss in the company's financial statements. When a company has a high inventory ratio, the higher the potential for data manipulation in the company's financial statements. The risk of loss such as damage to goods, declining prices of goods, and other risks will arise when inventory is stored in large quantities. Therefore, a subjective assessment of inventory is needed so that obsolete inventory values appear. It can be used by BAARJ 74 Volume 2 | Number 2 | December | 2022 company management as a tool in manipulating reports financial person. The results of this study are the same as previous studies (Nurardi & Wijayanti, 2021) (S. P. Sari & Nugroho, 2020) (Kusumosari & Solikhah, 2021) that the opportunity proxied by the nature of industry has a positive effect on financial statement fraud. However, this research is not in line with previous research conducted by (M. R. Sari & Rofi, 2020) (Dwijayani et al., 2019) which said that the nature of industry had no effect on financial statement fraud.

Hypothesis Test (H4)
The fourth hypothesis (H4) in this study is ratinalization proxied by change in auditors as measured by a dummy variable that has a negative effect on financial statement fraud. This study shows that H4 is rejected. Thus, it can be concluded that the rationalization proxied by the change in auditor has no effect on financial statement fraud. When a company changes auditors on the grounds that the auditor's performance was previously unsatisfactory, it is not merely to cover the tracks of fraud committed by the company's management. When a company changes auditors, it can also be caused because the company wants to carry out policies set by the government, namely the Regulation of the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia Number 17/PMK.01/2008 article 3 paragraph 1. Where audit services on the financial statements of a company can be carried out for a maximum of six years. consecutive books by the same Public Accounting Firm or three years in a row by the same auditor to the same client.
The results of this study are the same as previous studies (Banking & Indonesia, 2021) (Laut et al., 2019) (M. R. Sari & Rofi, 2020) that the rationalization proxied by change in auditors has no effect on financial statement fraud. However, this study is not in line with previous research conducted by (Jannah & Rasuli, 2021) (Farmashinta & Yudowati, 2019) which said that change in auditors had a positive effect on financial statement fraud.

Hypothesis Test (H5)
The fifth hypothesis (H5) in this study is the capability proxied by change in director as measured by a dummy variable that has a negative effect on financial statement fraud. This study shows that H5 is rejected. Thus, it can be concluded that the capability proxied by the change in director has no effect on financial statement fraud. The reason a company changes directors is because the director's performance is unsatisfactory. Or a change of directors in a company due to retirement or resignation. The performance of directors in a company is supervised by the board of commissioners. Therefore, when the board of commissioners assesses the performance of the directors as less competent, the board of commissioners will replace the directors with more competent candidates in the hope that the performance of the directors in the company will be more satisfactory. When the directors in the company are competent, the level of prudence in carrying out their duties is also higher. Also, the change in the composition of the board of directors is carried out with the aim of increasing company performance such as supervision of company management in order to be able to minimize the possibility of fraud.
The results of this study are in line with previous research conducted by (Farmashinta & Yudowati, 2019) (Utami et al., 2019) (Anggono & Sakti, 2021 where change in director as a proxy for the capability variable has no effect on fraud in financial statements. However, this research is not in line with previous research conducted by (Jannah & Rasuli, 2021) which said that change in director had a positive effect on financial statement fraud.

Hypothesis Test (H6)
The sixth hypothesis (H6) in this study is that the ego proxied by CEO duality as measured by a dummy variable has a negative effect on financial statement fraud. This study shows that H6 is rejected. Thus, it can be concluded that the ego proxied by CEO duality has no effect on financial statement fraud. From the results of this study, it may be because the CEO who has multiple positions in the company does not include the dual positions in the directors' profile data in the financial statements. When in a company there is CEO duality or multiple positions, they take it as an opportunity to improve performance and also the company's performance, not make it a fraud. The concurrent position in question is as a director and concurrently as a board of commissioners. As for companies that do not have CEO duality or dual positions both inside and outside the company, they will focus more on their performance so that they can continue to improve the company's performance. And also the number of commissioners and the number of directors in a company is also occupied by several people so that it will make it difficult for someone who has multiple positions to commit fraud.
The results of this study are the same as previous studies (Jannah & Rasuli, 2021) (Journal, 2019) (Accounting et al., 2021) that the ego proxied by CEO duality has no effect on financial statement fraud. However, this research is not in line with An earlier study was conducted by (Anggono & Sakti, 2021) (S. P. Sari & Nugroho, 2020) which said that CEO duality had a positive effect on financial statement fraud.

Hypothesis Test (H7)
The seventh hypothesis (H7) in this study is collusion as measured by market performance, the level of profit generated, or price cost margin (PCM). negative effect on financial statement fraud. This study shows that H7 is rejected. Thus, it can be concluded that collusion has no effect on financial statement fraud. When a company has a high level of concentration, it means that the company has high efficiency so that the company can determine prices far above marginal cost, so it is not only companies in the market that collude. Market performance which consists of profit, innovation and efficiency is formed from market structure and behavior. So companies that have good innovation and efficiency will occupy a position in the market through lower prices so that prices can compete. If a company's market performance ratio is high, it does not mean that the company is in collusion.
The results of this study are consistent with previous research conducted by (Nurardi & Wijayanti, 2021) (Anggono & Sakti, 2021) (Accounting et al., 2021 which resulted that collusion had no effect on financial statement fraud. However, this research is not in line with previous research conducted by (Jannah & Rasuli, 2021) (S. P. Sari & Nugroho, 2020) (Banking & Indonesia, 2021) which said that collusion had a positive effect on financial statement fraud.

Hypothesis Test (H8)
The eighth hypothesis (H8) in this study is that the size of the company as a control variable measured by total assets has a negative effect on financial statement fraud. This study shows that H7 is rejected. Thus, it can be concluded that company size has no effect on financial statement fraud. Company size as a control variable which is calculated using total assets shows that the size of the company, whether small or large, has no effect on financial statement fraud. Both large and small companies of course both want to show good performance to users of their financial statements. So that companies that have asset values, both large and small, have the same opportunity or possibility to commit financial statement fraud. When the assets of a company are large, it does not mean the higher the possibility of the company to manipulate the financial statements that are used to reduce agency costs. Vice versa. Because companies with the slightest amount of assets have the same indications or opportunities to commit financial statement fraud. So that the size of the company cannot be used as a stimulus, opportunity or rationalization by the management in conducting financial statement fraud.
The results of this study are the same as previous research (Siswantoro, 2020) (Fa-jriSalmu & Ansori, 2018) (Mardianto & Tiono, 2019) that company size as measured by total assets has no effect on financial statement fraud. However, this study is not in line with previous research conducted by (Suyanto, 2009) which said that company size had a positive effect on financial statement fraud.

Conclusion
Based on the results of the analysis of this study, it can be concluded that the stimulus proxied by financial targets and external pressure has a positive effect on financial statement fraud. Opportunity variable is also proven to have an effect on financial statement fraud. The variables of rationalization, capability, ego, BAARJ 76 Volume 2 | Number 2 | December | 2022 collusion and company size have no effect on financial statement fraud.
Although the researcher has carried out this research as much as possible, there are still limitations in this study. The limitation of this study is that the financial target as measured by ROA is actually not appropriate if the hypothesis leads to incentives. Because companies with high ROA do not necessarily provide high incentives as well. To see the level of incentives or bonuses, it must be seen from the company's CALK because it depends on company policies. So the suggestion for future researchers is to use financial targets as a proxy for the stimulus to use other measurements other than ROA.
The results of this study have limitations, so the following suggestions for further researchers: 1. To add years of observation or use other sectors for research objects because in this study only 39 energy sector companies were used as samples. 2. The independent variables of this study only used 8 variables, namely the stimulus (financial target & external pressure), opportunity, rationalization, capability, ego, collusion, including company size as a control variable. So the suggestion for the next researcher is to add a variable from the hexagon fraud theory. 3. The statistical tool used in this study is multiple regression analysis. Further researchers can use other statistical tools such as logistic regression analysis.