Fraud Can Be Explained By Three Factors: Supply Of Motive

Fraud Can Be Explained By Three Factors Supply Of Motivated Offender

Fraud can be explained by three factors: the supply of motivated offenders, the availability of suitable targets, and the absence of capable guardians (e.g., internal controls). This framework is rooted in the fraud triangle theory, which posits that these three elements must converge for fraud to occur. To effectively prevent and detect fraud within organizations, understanding how these factors interplay is essential. This paper explores a real-world example of an individual found guilty of fraud, analyzing whether this individual exhibited the three fraud factors. Additionally, it provides management recommendations to assess employee integrity and prevent fraudulent activities.

Paper For Above instruction

The concept of the fraud triangle, introduced by Donald Cressey, emphasizes the convergence of three critical elements: motivation (or pressure), opportunity, and rationalization. A detailed analysis of a specific case of fraud committed by an individual reveals whether these factors were present and contributed to the fraudulent act.

One notable case is that of Elizabeth Holmes, founder of Theranos, who was found guilty of fraud for deceiving investors and stakeholders about the capabilities of her blood-testing technology. Holmes exemplified the elements of the fraud triangle. Her motivation was fueled by the pressure to succeed in a highly competitive biotech industry, where rapid innovation and funding were critical. Her opportunity arose from internal weaknesses in governance and oversight, allowing her to manipulate test results and financial reports without detection. Lastly, Holmes rationalized her actions by convincing herself that her mission to revolutionize healthcare justified her deception, portraying her behavior as morally justified in pursuit of a greater good. This case illustrates how all three factors—motivation, opportunity, and rationalization—converged to facilitate fraud.

In contrast, examining a workplace fraud case involving an employee’s embezzlement highlights the significance of internal controls in mitigating these factors. For instance, an accounts manager at a mid-sized company was convicted of diverting company funds over several years. The motivation stemmed from personal financial difficulties, and the opportunity was made available due to weak internal controls, such as lack of independent oversight and inadequate segregation of duties. The rationalization, in this case, was the employee's belief that they deserved the money due to perceived underpayment or unfair treatment. This case underscores the importance of a strong control environment in reducing opportunity and, consequently, fraud risk.

To prevent fraud motivated by these factors, management should implement robust mechanisms to assess and maintain employee integrity. Firstly, establishing a comprehensive background check process during hiring can help identify individuals with a propensity for dishonesty or financial difficulties, deterring potential motivated offenders. Regular employee training on ethical standards and company policies reinforces a culture of integrity and creates an environment where unethical behavior is less likely to be tolerated or rationalized. Moreover, implementing effective internal controls—such as segregation of duties, regular audits, and whistleblower protections—reduces the opportunities for fraud.

Management should also actively monitor behavioral cues indicating stress, dissatisfaction, or dissatisfaction among employees, which can be sources of motivation. Conducting anonymous surveys and performance evaluations can help gauge employee morale and detect potential issues early. Additionally, fostering an organizational culture of transparency and accountability encourages employees to adhere to ethical standards and discourages rationalization of fraudulent acts.

Another critical approach involves establishing a clear code of ethics and a zero-tolerance policy towards fraud. When employees understand the serious consequences of unethical behavior and see management's commitment to integrity, they are less likely to rationalize fraudulent actions. Furthermore, organizations can utilize data analytics and monitoring software to detect anomalies in financial data, thereby reducing opportunity and acting as a deterrent for motivated offenders.

In conclusion, understanding the elements of the fraud triangle provides valuable insights into preventing workplace fraud. By conducting thorough background checks, strengthening internal controls, promoting ethical culture, and continuously monitoring employee behavior, management can significantly reduce the risk of fraud occurring. A proactive approach that addresses motivation, opportunity, and rationalization creates an environment where honesty is valued and fraudulent conduct is less likely to thrive.

References

1. Cressey, D. R. (1953). Other people's money: A study in the social psychology of embezzlement. Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith.
2. Somers, P. (2012). Fraud prevention and detection. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 10(3), 107-118.
3. Albrecht, W. S., Albrecht, C. C., Albrecht, C. O., & Zimbelman, M. F. (2019). Fraud Examination. Cengage Learning.
4. Hammersley, J. S., & Trotman, K. T. (2010). The fraud triangle: Detecting and preventing fraud. Journal of Accountancy, 209(4), 58-63.
5. International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). (2020). Forensic and Investigative Accounting. IFAC Publications.
6. Singleton, T. W., & Singleton, A. J. (2010). fraud auditing and forensic accounting. John Wiley & Sons.
7. Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE). (2022). Report to the Nations: Global Study on Occupational Fraud. ACFE.
8. Rezaee, Z. (2018). Enhancing fraud prevention culture: Strategies for organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(1), 245-268.
9. Whitworth, T. (2017). Ethical leadership and organizational integrity. Journal of Business Ethics, 144, 33-44.
10. Kranacher, M. J., Riley, R. A., & Wells, J. T. (2011). Forensic Accounting and Fraud Examination. John Wiley & Sons.