Abstract:Accusations of corporate wrongdoing have dominated headlines over the last decade and have generated a great deal of research inquiry.This paper identifies an important factor in assessing a firm’s likelihood of engaging in wrongdoing.To address the issue of the partial observations of corporate fraud,we estimate the Bivariate Probit model with the data of the 1729 Chinese listed firms over the period of 2001-2009.We find that institutional shareholding ownership is positively and significantly related to fraud detection,and is negatively and significantly related to fraud propensity after controlling for firm characteristics,other corporate governance factors,industry factors and economics environmental factors.These findings are robust after addressing the endogenous problem on institutional shareholding by employing the instrumental variable regression method.In addition,the impacts of the institutional shareholding on corporate fraud detection and propensity vary in terms of the types of corporate frauds and the types of institutional shareholding.Specifically,the investigation reveals that the impact of institutional shareholding on fraud propensity related to information disclosure is stronger than that related to operating issues.Also,the proportion of fraud firms is higher in securities investment funds holding firms than in insurance companies holding firms,social security funds holding firms,and enterprises annuities holding firms.Besides,we also examine the interactive effects of institutional shareholding with other widely documented internal corporate governance mechanisms including state ownership,ownership concentration,board size and percentage of independent directors of the board,respectively.The results suggest that the monitoring benefits from institutional investors are independent from these other firm’s internal governance mechanisms including state ownership,ownership concentration,board size and percentage of independent directors of the board.Overall,the above results imply that institutional investors help to prevent and reveal corporate fraud in China.This study provides important implications for institutional investors,firms and government in acting against corporate fraud in Chinese financial market.

How Boards’ Factional Faultlines Affect Corporate Financial Fraud

How Board Faultlines Affect Board Effectiveness in Monitoring

Board Gender Diversity,Managerial Power and Demand for External Audit

Corporate Philanthropy and Corporate Misconduct: Evidence from China

Do Good Firms Necessarily Do Bad Things? Performance Aspiration, Ownership and Financial Fraud

Financial Shared Service Centers and Corporate Misconduct: Evidence from China

MARKET COMPETITION,MANAGER INCENTIVE,AND FRAUD BEHAVIOR OF LISTED COMPANIES——EVIDENCE FROM PUNISHMENT BULLETINS BY CSRC

Fraud, Enforcement Action, and the Role of Corporate Governance: Evidence from China

Can board of directors' faultlines improve corporate innovation performance? Evidence from China

Board Faultlines, Innovation Strategy Decisions, and Faultline Activation: Research on Technology-Intensive Enterprises in Chinese A-Share Companies

The impact of subscribing to directors' and officers' liability insurance on corporate financialization: Evidence from China

Corporate Governance, Ownership and Financial Distress of Publicly Listed Companies in China

Influence of Corporate Governance Structure on Financial Fraud in Listed Companies

Corporate social responsibility and corporate fraud in China: The perspective of moderating effect of board gender diversity

A study of the impact of staggered boards on corporate financialization: from the perspective of board governance

Board Structure, Political Influence and Firm Performance - an Empirical Study on Publicly Listed Firms in China

Equity Incentives and Corporate Fraud in China

Institutional Shareholding and Corporate Fraud:Evidence from China

Cheating in China: Corporate Fraud and the Role of Financial Markets

Alternative Governance and Corporate Financial Fraud in Transition Economies: Evidence From China

Does Board Monitoring Substitute for External Corporate Governance? Evidence from Private Firms