SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sayıştay Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 37 Sayı: 140

STATISTICAL ANOMALY DETECTION IN THE AUDIT OF PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT: BENFORD’S LAW AND ALTERNATIVE METHODS

KAMU MALİ YÖNETİMİNİN DENETİMİNDE İSTATİSTİKSEL ANOMALİ TESPİTİ: BENFORD YASASI VE ALTERNATİF YÖNTEMLER

Büşra Çiçekli(Sayıştay Başkanlığı)0009-0006-7040-5160
Durdane Küçükaycan(ESKİŞEHİR OSMANGAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-5515-2616
Pages
131–162
Publication Date
2026-04-11
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicate that the greatest benefit in auditing can be achieved with a layered and hybrid anomaly detection architecture that uses different methods together, and that this approach will contribute to strengthening accountability and financial transparency in public financial management.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Digitalization in public financial management has fundamentally transformed the scope and methods of public auditing by enhancing traceability, comparability, and data accessibility.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Enterprise resource planning (ERP) and e-procurement systems, API-based applications, and time-stamped records in cloud environments enable a transition from sampling-based, periodic audits to continuous monitoring and riskbased audit models.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that the greatest benefit in auditing can be achieved with a layered and hybrid anomaly detection architecture that uses different methods together, and that this approach will contribute to strengthening accountability and financial transparency in public financial management.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Yüksek Denetim Kurumları · Anomali tespiti · Benford Yasası

Abstract

Digitalization in public financial management has fundamentally transformed the scope and methods of public auditing by enhancing traceability, comparability, and data accessibility. Enterprise resource planning (ERP) and e-procurement systems, API-based applications, and time-stamped records in cloud environments enable a transition from sampling-based, periodic audits to continuous monitoring and riskbased audit models. In this evolving environment, anomaly detection has become a central audit instrument, facilitating the identification of unusual amount and temporal clusters, transaction splitting practices, unit price deviations, and irregularities in digit distributions. The aim of this study is to address statistical anomaly detection in the audit of public financial management within the framework of Benford’s Law and alternative and/or complementary methods, and to present a layered and phased application approach that can be adapted to different data ecosystems. In this context, Benford’s Law and other statistical and data analytics-based methods are evaluated comparatively in terms of their theoretical foundations and application criteria. The findings indicate that the greatest benefit in auditing can be achieved with a layered and hybrid anomaly detection architecture that uses different methods together, and that this approach will contribute to strengthening accountability and financial transparency in public financial management.

Özet

Kamu mali yönetiminde dijitalleşme; izlenebilirlik, karşılaştırılabilirlik ve veri erişilebilirliği artırarak denetimin kapsamını ve yöntemlerini köklü şekilde dönüştürmektedir. Kurumsal kaynak planlama ve e-satınalma sistemleri, API tabanlı uygulamalar ve bulut ortamındaki zaman damgalı kayıtlar, örneklemeye dayalı dönemsel denetim anlayışından sürekli izleme ve risk temelli modellere geçişi mümkün kılmaktadır. Bu ortamda anomali tespiti, olağandışı tutar ve zaman kümelenmeleri, işlem parçalamaları, birim fiyat sapmaları ve basamak dağılımı düzensizlikleri üzerinden temel bir denetim aracı hâline gelmiştir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, kamu mali yönetiminin denetiminde istatistiksel anomali tespitini Benford Yasası ile alternatif ve/veya tamamlayıcı yöntemler çerçevesinde ele almak, farklı veri ekosistemlerine uyarlanabilecek katmanlı ve aşamalı bir uygulama yaklaşımı ortaya koymaktır. Bu kapsamda Benford Yasası ile diğer istatistiksel ve veri analitiği temelli yöntemler, kuramsal dayanakları ve uygulama kriterleri bakımından karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Elde edilen bulgular, denetimde en yüksek faydanın farklı yöntemlerin birlikte kullanıldığı katmanlı ve hibrit bir anomali tespit mimarisi ile sağlanabileceğini ve bu yaklaşımın kamu mali yönetiminde hesap verebilirlik ve mali saydamlığın güçlendirilmesine katkı sağlayacağını göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çiçekli, B., Küçükaycan, D. (2026). STATISTICAL ANOMALY DETECTION IN THE AUDIT OF PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT: BENFORD’S LAW AND ALTERNATIVE METHODS. Sayıştay Dergisi, Cilt: 37 Sayı: 140, 131–162. https://doi.org/10.52836/sayistay.1886248

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (74)

  1. Almadadha, R. (2024). Blockchain Technology in Financial Accounting: Enhancing Transparency, Security, and ESG Reporting. Blockchains, 2024(2), 312–333.
  2. Androulaki, E., Barger, A., Bortnikov, V., Cachin, C., Christidis, K., ……. ve Yellick, J. (2018). Hyperledger fabric: a distributed operating system for permissioned blockchains. European Conference on Computer Systems, 30.
  3. Asllani, A. ve Naco, M. (2014). Using Benford’s Law for Fraud Detection in Accounting Practices, Journal of Social Science Studies. Macrothink Institute, 2(1), 129-143
  4. Ateş, H. (2025). Algorithmic Systems and Democratic Oversight in Public Auditing. Sayıştay Dergisi, 36(139), 681-709.
  5. Azevedo, C. da S., Gonçalves, R. F., Gava, V. L. ve Spinola, M. de M. (2021). A Benford’s Law based methodology for fraud detection in social welfare programs: Bolsa Familia analysis. Physica A-Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 567, 125626.
  6. Benford, F. (1938). The Law of Anomalous Numbers. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 78(4), 551–572.
  7. Berger, A.ve Hill, T.P. (2011). Benford’s Law Strikes Back: No Simple Explanation in Sight for Mathematical Gem. Math Intelligencer, 33, 85–91.
  8. Berger, A. ve Hill, T.P. (2020). The mathematics of Benford’s law: A Primer. Stat Methods Appl, 30, 779-795.
  9. Boztepe, E. (2013). Benford Yasası ve Muhasebe Denetiminde Kullanılabilirliği. LAÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 4(1), 73-83.
  10. Brandão, M. A., Reis, A. P. G., Mendes, B. M. A., …. ve Pappa, G. (2023). PLUS: A Semiautomated Pipeline for Fraud Detection in Public Bids, Digital Government: Research and Practice, 5(1), 1-16.
  11. Bugarin, M. S. ve Cunha, F.C.R. da. (2017). Lei de Benford Aplicada à Auditoria da Reforma do Aeroporto Internacional de Minas Gerais. Revista Do Serviço Público, 68(4) 915- 940.
  12. Can, E. N. ve Özarı, Ç. (2023). Benford Yasası ve Beneısh Model İle Muhasebe Manipülasyonunun Belirlenmesi: Ampirik Bir Uygulama. Denetişim, 28, 88-103.
  13. Cella, R. ve Zanolla, E. (2018). Benford’s Law and Transparency: An Analysis of Municipal expenditure. Brazilian Business Review, 15, 331-347.
  14. Cerioli, A. (2009). Multivariate Outlier Detection With High-Breakdown Estimators. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 105(489), 147–156.
  15. Cerqueti, R. ve Lupi, C. (2022). Severe testing of Benford’s law, TEST: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research. Springer, 32(2), 677- 694.
  16. Chandola, V., Banerjee, A. ve Kumar, V. (2009). Anomaly Detection: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 41(3), 15.
  17. Ciğerci İ. ve Eğmir R.T. (2019). Kamu Mali Denetiminde Olası Blok Zincir Teknolojisinin Denetim Etkinliği Açısından Değerlendirilmesi. Maliye Dergisi, 177, 203-217.
  18. Darhasani ve Usman, F. (2021). Benford’s Law Test Method in Tax Audit Planning. European Journal of Business and Management Research, 6(6), 240-246.
  19. Durtschi, C., Hillison, W.A. ve Pacini, C. (2004). The Effective Use of Benford’s Law to Assist in Detecting Fraud in Accounting Data. Journal of Forensic Accounting, 524-5586, 5(1), 17-34.
  20. Emmott, A., Das, S., Dietterich, T.G., Fern, A. ve Wong W. (2016). A Meta-analysis of the Anomaly Detection Problem, arXiv: Artificial Intelligence
  21. De Falco, S.E., Cucari, N., Canuti, E. ve Modena, S. (2019). Corporate Governance and Blockchain: Some Preliminary Results by a Survey, Corporate Governance: Search for the Advanced Practices, 102-115.
  22. Fawcett, T. (2006). An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognition Letters, 27(8), 861–874.
  23. Ferreira Cavazin, T. (2025). Comprehensive Tokenomics Analysis via Benford’s Law Applications in Anomaly Detection and Financial Forensics.
  24. Filzmoser, P. (2005). Identification of Multivariate Outliers: A Performance Study. Austrian Journal of Statistics, 34, 127-138.
  25. Fulcer, K., Gu, H., Hu, H., Huang, Q. Kogan, A., Vasarhelyi, M., Wei, D. ve Young, J. (2024). Application of Outlier Detection Methods in Audit Analytics, Avaible in SSRN Genaro-Moya, D., Lopez-Hernandez, A.M. ve Godz, M. (2025). Artificial Intelligence and Public Sector Auditing: Challenges and Opportunities for Supreme Audit Institutions, World, 6(2), 78.
  26. Güner, M. ve Kurnaz, E. (2021). Muhasebe Denetiminde Benford Kanununun Kullanımı Bir Devlet Üniversitesi Uygulaması. Gümüşhane University Journal of Social Sciences, 12(1), 81-96.
  27. Hashim S. C. (2024). Impact Smart Applications To Enhance The Transparency and Accuracy of Financial Auditing. Anggaran: Jurnal Publikasi Ekonomi Dan Akuntansi, 2(4), 22–39.
  28. Hernandez Aros L., Bustamante Molano L. X., Gutierrez-Portela F. ve Moreno Hernandez J.J. ve Rodríguez Barrero, M.S. (2024). Financial Fraud Detection Through the Application of Machine Learning Techniques: A Literature Review. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1-22.
  29. Hill, T.P. (1995). A Statistical Derivation of the Significant-Digit Law. Statistical Science, 10(4), 354–363.
  30. Hodge, V.J. ve Austin, J. (2004). A Survey of Outlier Detection Methodologies. Artif Intell Rev 22, 85–126
  31. Hubert M, Debruyne M, Rousseeuw PJ. (2018). Minimum Covariance Determinant and Extensions. WIREs Comput Statistics, 10, e1421.
  32. Johora, F. T., Hasan, R., Farabi, S. F., Akter, J. ve Mahmud, Md. A. A. (2024). Ai-Powered Fraud Detection in Banking: Safeguarding Financial Transaction. The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations, 6(6), 8–22.
  33. Kıvraklar, M.K. ve Demirci, Ş.D. (2019). Benford Yasası’nın Mali Denetim Alanında Kullanımı Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Muhasebe ve Vergi Uygulamaları Dergisi, 12(2), 289-316.
  34. Kossovsky, A. E. (2021). On the Mistaken Use of the Chi-Square Test in Benford’s Law. Stats, 4(2), 419-453. Köse, E. ve Özdemir, M. (2019). Muhasebe Denetiminde Benford Kanunu ve Ölçekten Bağımsızlık Yönteminin Test Edilmesi. Kırklareli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3(3), 271-287.
  35. Köse, H. Ö. ve Polat, N. (2022). Dijital Dönüşüm ve Denetimin Geleceğine Etkisi. Sayıştay Dergisi, 32(123), 9-41.
  36. Küçükaycan, D. (2020). Mali Saydamlık ve Hesap Verebilirlik Aracı Olarak Türk Sayıştayı’nın Performans Denetimi. Denetişim, 20, 35-54.
  37. Le L. ve Mantelaers E. (2024). Benford’s Law and Beyond: A Framework for Auditors. Maandblad voor Accountancy en Bedrijfseconomie, 98, 427-438.
  38. Lima, W., Lira, R., Paiva, A., Silva, J. ve Silva, V. (2023). Methodology for Automatic Extraction of Red Flags in Public Procurement. 2023 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 01-07.
  39. Lipton, Z.C. (2016). The Mythos of Model Interpretability. Communications of the ACM, 61, 36-43.
  40. Montgomery, R. M. (2024). Techniques for Outlier Detection: A Comprehensive View. Journal of Biomedical and Engineering Research.2 (2), 1-10.
  41. Morales, H. R., Porporato, M. ve Epelbaum, N. (2022). Benford’s Law for Integrity Tests of High-Volume Databases: A Case Study of Internal Audit in a State-Owned Enterprise. Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science, 27(53), 154–174.
  42. Moschini, G., Houssou, R., Bovay, J. ve Robert-Nicoud, S. (2021). Anomaly and Fraud Detection in Credit Card Transactions Using the ARIMA Model. Engineering Proceedings, 5(1), 56.
  43. Motta Café, R., Soares Bugarin, M. ve Cuoco Portugal, A. (2021). Auditoria de Obras Públicas e Lei de Benford: O Caso do Expresso DF Sul no Distrito Federal. Revista Do Serviço Público, 72(2), 360-399.
  44. Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. https://bitcoin.org/ bitcoin.pdf
  45. Newcomb, S. (1881). Note on the Frequency of Use of the Different Digits in Natural Numbers. American Journal of Mathematics, 4(1), 39–40.
  46. Nigrini, M. J. (1996). A Taxpayer Compliance Application of Benford’s Law. The Journal of the American Taxation Association, 18(1), 72.
  47. Nigrini, M. J. (1999). I’ve Got Your Number. Journal of Accountancy, Vol. 187, 79-83.
  48. Nigrini, M.J. (2012). Benford’s Law: Applications for Forensic Accounting, Auditing, and Fraud Detection. John Wiley ve Sons. Hoboken, New Jersey.
  49. OECD (2022). Strengthening Analytics in Mexico’s Supreme Audit Institution: Considerations and Priorities for Assessing Integrity Risks, OECD Public Governance Reviews. OECD Publishing, Paris.
  50. Otia, J. E. ve Bracci, E. (2022). Digital Transformation and the Public Sector Auditing: The SAI’s perspective. Financial Accountability ve Management, 38, 252–280.
  51. Öncü, M. A., Yücel, R. ve Özevin, O. (2018). Benford Analizi ile Muhasebe Denetimi: Kamu Hastaneleri Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, 80, 1-22.
  52. Özdemir, H. ve Yelboğa, A. (2025). Yapay Zekâ Destekli Denetimin Kamu Harcamalarındaki Rolü: Sayıştay Örneği. Sayıştay Dergisi, 36(139), 771–802.
  53. Pamisetty, V. (2021). Big Data and Predictive Analytics in Government Finance: Transforming Fraud Detection and Fiscal Oversight. International Journal of Engineering and Computer Science, 10(12), 25731-25755.
  54. Pinkham, R. S. (1961). On the Distribution of First Significant Digits. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 32(4), 1223–1230.
  55. Popoola, T. (2023). Big Data-Driven Financial Fraud Detection and Anomaly Detection Systems for Regulatory Compliance and Market Stability. International Journal of Computer Applications Technology and Research, 12 (9), 32–46.
  56. Restrepo-Carmona, J. A., Zuluaga, J. C., Velásquez, M., …. ve Vásquez, R. E. (2024). Smart Supervision of Public Expenditure; A Review on Data Capture, Storage, Processing, and Interoperability with a Case Study from Colombia. Information, 15(10), 616.
  57. Rosner, B. (1983). Percentage Points for a Generalized ESD Many-Outlier Procedure. Technometrics, 25(2), 165–172.
  58. Rousseeuw P. ve Hubert M. (2018). Anomaly Detection by Robust Statistics. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery. 8, 1391-1402.
  59. Schultz, M. ve Tropmann-Frick, M. (2020). Autoencoder Neural Networks Versus External Auditors: Detecting Unusual Journal Entries in Financial Statement Audits, In Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 5421-5430.
  60. Setyawan, E. C. (2020). The Use of Benford’s Law in Performance Audit to Detect Fraud in The State Expendituretransactions Assisted by Idea Software (A Case Study at the Transportation Ministry Work Units). Asia Pacific Fraud Journal, 5(1), 147–159.
  61. Shalhoob, H., Halawani, B., Alharbi, M. ve Babiker, I. (2024). The Impact of Big Data Analytics on The Detection of Errors And Fraud in Accounting Processes. Revista De Gestão RGSA, 18(1), e06115.
  62. Sharma A. ve Panigrahi P K. (2013). A Review of Financial Accounting Fraud Detection based on Data Mining Techniques. International Journal of Computer Applications. 39, 37- 47.
  63. Silva, W. B. da, Travassos, S. K. de M. ve Costa, J. I. de F. (2017). Using the Newcomb-Benford Law as a Deviation Identification Method in Continuous Auditing Environments: A Proposal for Detecting Deviations over Time Revista Contabilidade ve Finanças USP, 28(73), 11-26.
  64. Silva, J.O. ve Boente, D.R. (2023). Use of Newcomb-Benford Law: A Contribution to Accounting Compliance Audit in The Federal Network of Professional and Technological Education. Advances in Scientific and Applied Accounting, 16(1), 185- 200.
  65. Uzun, Y. ve Uzun, F. N. (2025). Algoritmik Denetim Çağında Sayıştay: Yapay Zekâ Destekli Kamu Denetiminin Olanakları ve Sınırları. Sayıştay Dergisi, 36(139), 711-742.
  66. Volodina, T. ve Grossi, G. (2025). Digital Transformation in Public Sector Auditing: Between Hope and Fear. Public Management Review, 27:5, 1444-1468,
  67. Wiryadinata, D., Sugiharto, A. ve Tarno, T. (2023). The Use of Machine Learning to Detect Financial Transaction Fraud: Multiple Benford Law Model for Auditors. Journal of Information Systems Engineering and Business Intelligence, 9(2), 239–252.
  68. Xu, X., Weber, I., Staples, M., Zhu, L., Bosch, J., Bass, L., Pautasso, C. ve Rimba, P. (2017). A Taxonomy of Blockchain-Based Systems for Architecture Design, International Conference on Software Architecture (ICSA), 243-252.
  69. Yaro A. S., Maly F., Prazak P. ve Malý K. (2024). Outlier Detection Performance of a Modified Z-Score Method in Time-Series RSS Observation With Hybrid Scale Estimators, in IEEE Access, vol. 12, 12785-12796.
  70. Yıldız, M. S. (2018). Benford Yasasının Veri Doğruluğunun Değerlendirilmesi Amaçlı Kullanımı: Hastane Verileri için Bir Uygulama. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, 25(3), 849-861.
  71. Yudhistira ve Nengzih, N. (2021). Benford’s Law Analysis to Determine Audit Priorities (Case Study on the 2020 Central Government Financial Statement Audit). Saudi Journal of Economics and Finance (SJEF), 5(9), 397-410. Zhang, A., Deng, S., Cui, D., Yuan, Y. ve Wang, G. (2023). An Experimental Evaluation of Anomaly Detection in Time Series. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 17(3), 483–496. Zimek, A. ve Filzmoser, P. (2018). There and Back Again: Outlier Detection Between Statistical Reasoning and Data Mining Algorithms. WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 8(6).
  72. Androulaki, E., Barger, A., Bortnikov, V., Cachin, C., Christidis, K., ……. ve Yellick, J. (2018). Hyperledger fabric: a distributed operating system for permissioned blockchains. European Conference on Computer Systems, 30.
  73. Brandão, M. A., Reis, A. P. G., Mendes, B. M. A., …. ve Pappa, G. (2023). PLUS: A Semiautomated Pipeline for Fraud Detection in Public Bids, Digital Government: Research and Practice, 5(1), 1-16.
  74. Restrepo-Carmona, J. A., Zuluaga, J. C., Velásquez, M., …. ve Vásquez, R. E. (2024). Smart Supervision of Public Expenditure; A Review on Data Capture, Storage, Processing, and Interoperability with a Case Study from Colombia. Information, 15(10), 616.