Forensic-Auditing Capabilities and Self-Reported Recognition of Suspicious Money-Laundering Indicators Among Accounting Professionals in Peru: A Structural and Explainable Machine-Learning Study

This study examines how accounting professionals’ self-reported forensic-auditing capabilities relate to their attitudinal readiness to recognize suspicious anti-money-laundering (AML) indicators, using a transparent hybrid design that combines classical psychometrics, structural equation modeling (SEM), and leakage-controlled explainable machine learning (ML). A cross-sectional survey collected 700 valid responses from public accountants in Lima, Peru, with a 30-item, five-point Likert instrument (19 forensic-auditing items in three dimensions and 11 AML-recognition items). Reliability was high (Cronbach’s α = 0.935; McDonald’s ω = 0.935), but average variance extracted was below 0.50 in every block (0.329–0.449), and Fornell–Larcker testing showed that skills-and-knowledge and AML recognition were not discriminantly distinct (r = 0.673 > √AVE = 0.651/0.649). Responses showed a pronounced ceiling (51% of answers were the maximum), and 86 respondents (12.3%) answered all 30 items identically; removing them lowered the forensic-auditing–AML association from r = 0.731 to 0.630 and explained variance from 53.8% to 40.3%. Skills-and-knowledge remained the strongest predictor in SEM and HC3-robust regression (β = 0.478 and 0.425). Under a leakage-free protocol, ensemble models reached ROC-AUC ≈ 0.86 on held-out data, but threshold tuning did not improve F1 test, and item-level attributions were unstable (Spearman ρ = 0.28). Forensic-auditing capabilities are positively associated with declared AML-recognition readiness, driven by applied skills and knowledge; the evidence is attitudinal and correlational, and should not be read as real detection capability. Because professional experience, seniority, sector, and prior AML training were not measured, the reported associations may be partly confounded by unobserved professional background, and the dominance of skills-and-knowledge is therefore advanced as tentative, pending resolution of the skills-and-knowledge/AML-recognition discriminant-validity overlap. A second, procedural contribution is that the study reports the data-quality screening, the failed validity tests, and the explanation-stability diagnostics that survey-based forensic-accounting research rarely makes visible.