based on the following text :

- International trade is growing rapidly, for both developing and developed countries(World Bank Group, 2001), and economies of countries such as the USA and China have become increasingly intertwined (Atkinson, 2004). Multinational corporations must carefully consider how to manage their international affairs because many managerial principles are influenced by the cultural context in which they are applied(Earley, 1989; Hofstede, 1992), Western management systems may not work well in Asian cultures (Weltzein Hovik, 2007), and norms of ethical business behavior vary widely across capitalist nations (Okleshen and Hoyt, 1996). Whistleblowing, in particular, may be affected by culture since perceptions of right and wrong, justice, morality and loyalty can differ across countries (Vogel, 1992). Similarly, the effectiveness of a code of conduct may be influenced by cross-cultural differences that shape perceptions about ethical dilemmas (Cohen et al., 1996). What may be considered legitimate in one culture may be considered corruption in another culture, and this lack of common understanding makes combating international corruption difficult. For example, what is thought of as a gift in Japan could be construed as a bribe in the USA (Watson, 2003).

Another example is the propensity for managers in China to divert resources to parallel operationsor other companies that they also have a stake in (Atkinson, 2004). Intellectual property may be viewed as a communal good in Asian countries influenced by Confucian ethics (Yang and Sonmez, 2007). Moreover, technology can exacerbate this problem since people may be less aware of cultural differences when they are no longer meeting face to face. Hofstede (2001) defines culture as a collective programming of the mind, which includes ethical values. The purpose of this paper is to examine differences in managers and employees attitudes about fraud across different cultures, provide some theories as to why these differences exist, give some recent examples of cultural differences in ethical perceptions from practice, make recommendations as to how companies can address this issue and make improvements to their anti-fraud programs based on the country and culture in which they operate, and suggest some opportunities for future research.

Anti-fraud programs and culture Fraud is a significant and growing problem for businesses. A recent study of 538 companies in 15 European nations found that fraud cost at least e3.6 billion (Zhuang et al., 2005). A recent survey by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners suggests that corporations lose about 7 percent of revenues per year to fraud or $994 billion in total (Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, 2008). Detecting fraud has become very important to the accounting profession because failure to detect fraud can be damaging to capital markets (Palmrose, 1987; Bonner et al., 1998; Elliot, 2002; Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 2004; Carpenter et al., 2007). Moreover,

corporate management is now required to develop vigorous anti-fraud programs in response to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. However, these anti-fraud programs may not take into account cultural differences that may influence how employees respond to situations that may be indicative of fraud, despite the fact that cultural differences within multinational corporations have been well documented (Hofstede, 1987; Newman and Nollen, 1996), and linked to on-the-job values (Hofstede, 1980) and perceptions regarding business-related ethical dilemmas (Harzing and Hofstede, 1996; Alderson and Kakabadse, 1994; Zhuang et al., 2005). Cultural differences are significantly related to accountants perceptions

regarding the severity of a range of fraudulent activities, including corruption. Accountants from the Asia-Pacific region do not view bribes or illegal gratuities, for example, as seriously as accountants from other geographic areas. One explanation for these findings is that East Asians have a more holistic view of causality (i.e. everything is related to everything else), place more weight on situational factors, and are less likely to explain behavior in terms of individual traits or agree to punitive measures (Wong-On-Wing and Liu, 2007). For instance, Smith (2007), found that in response to bribery, US students focus on legalism and the categorical imperative, whereas international students focus more on cultural relativism. In addition, Albrecht et al. (2009) point out that some of the financial scandals in South Korea were perceived as smart financial moves rather than unethical corrupt acts.

Questions:

1.provide an introduction to the topic discussed in this text (introduction should be well explained ,and long)

2.Outline the key points of this text ,explain them (explanation should be very detailed)

3.Add 6 graphs of some recent statistics related to this topic ,and explain each graph deeply.

4.Discuss and explain in detail the main idea of this text(the discussion should be long, detailed and in depth)

5.Provide a conclusion to the topic discussed.