Detecting Fraud Using Modified Benford Analysis

  • Christian Winter
  • Markus Schneider
  • York Yannikos
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 361)


Large enterprises frequently enforce accounting limits to reduce the impact of fraud. As a complement to accounting limits, auditors use Benford analysis to detect traces of undesirable or illegal activities in accounting data. Unfortunately, the two fraud fighting measures often do not work well together. Accounting limits may significantly disturb the digit distribution examined by Benford analysis, leading to high false alarm rates, additional investigations and, ultimately, higher costs. To better handle accounting limits, this paper describes a modified Benford analysis technique where a cut-off log-normal distribution derived from the accounting limits and other properties of the data replaces the distribution used in Benford analysis. Experiments with simulated and real-world data demonstrate that the modified Benford analysis technique significantly reduces false positive errors.


Auditing fraud detection Benford analysis 


  1. 1.
    F. Benford, The law of anomalous numbers, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 78(4), pp. 551–572, 1938.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Boyle, An application of Fourier series to the most significant digit problem, American Mathematical Monthly, vol. 101(9), pp. 879–886, 1994.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Bredl, P. Winker and K. Kotschau, A Statistical Approach to Detect Cheating Interviewers, Discussion Paper 39, Giessen Electronic Bibliotheque, University of Giessen, Giessen, Germany (, 2008.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. Dumbgen and C. Leuenberger, Explicit bounds for the approximation error in Benford’s law, Electronic Communications in Probability, vol. 13, pp. 99–112, 2008.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Durtschi, W. Hillison, and C. Pacini, The effective use of Benford’s law to assist in detecting fraud in accounting data, Journal of Forensic Accounting, vol. V, pp. 17–34, 2004.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    N. Gauvrit and J.-P. Delahaye, Scatter and regularity imply Benford’s law … and more, submitted to Mathematical Social Sciences, 2009.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    W. Hurlimann, Generalizing Benford’s law using power laws: Application to integer sequences, International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences, vol. 2009, id. 970284, pp. 1–10, 2009.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. Lu and J. Boritz, Detecting fraud in health insurance data: Learning to model incomplete Benford’s law distributions, Proceedings of the Sixteenth European Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 633–640, 2005.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Newcomb, Note on the frequency of use of the different digits in natural numbers, American Journal of Mathematics, vol. 4(1), pp. 39–40, 1881.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Nigrini, Digital Analysis Using Benford’s Law, Global Audit Publications, Vancouver, Canada, 2000.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Nigrini and L. Mittermaier, The use of Benford’s law as an aid in analytical procedures, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, vol. 16(2), pp. 52–67, 1997.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    L. Pietronero, E. Tosatti, V. Tosatti and A. Vespignani, Explaining the uneven distribution of numbers in nature: The laws of Benford and Zipf, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, vol. 293(1-2), pp. 297–304, 2001.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Pinkham, On the distribution of first significant digits, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 32(4), pp. 1223–1230, 1961.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Raimi, The first digit problem, American Mathematical Monthly, vol. 83(7), pp. 521–538, 1976.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Rodriguez, First significant digit patterns from mixtures of uniform distributions, American Statistician, vol. 58(1), pp. 64–71, 2004.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. Scott and M. Fasli, Benford’s Law: An Empirical Investigation and a Novel Explanation, Technical Report CSM 349, Department of Computer Science, University of Essex, Colchester, United Kingdom, 2001.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates – Counties, Washington, DC (, 1990.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    C. Watrin, R. Struffert and R. Ullmann, Benford’s law: An instrument for selecting tax audit targets? Review of Managerial Science, vol. 2(3), pp. 219–237, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Y. Yannikos, F. Franke, C. Winter and M. Schneider, 3LSPG: Forensic tool evaluation by three layer stochastic process based generation of data, in Computational Forensics, H. Sako, K. Franke and S. Saitoh (Eds.), Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp. 200–211, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Winter
    • 1
  • Markus Schneider
    • 1
  • York Yannikos
    • 1
  1. 1.Fraunhofer Institute for Secure Information TechnologyDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations