Читать книгу Profiling The Fraudster - Padgett Simon - Страница 12

Business has been around for thousands of years, and the way it is run and sometimes abused can be embedded deep in the culture. Occupational fraud was defined by American criminologist Edwin H. Sutherland (1883–1950) as “a crime that involves a betrayal of trust implied in the holding of an office or other position of trust.” Sutherland used the term white-collar crime, casting doubt on the idea that poverty breeds crime. Sutherland argued in White Collar Crime that members of society occupying positions of privilege and status were just as likely to commit crime as those from lower classes. Sutherland's work, it could be argued, reflects some of the earliest studies on profiling criminals.

It can be contended that rationalization of occupational crime comes from its low visibility, occurring under cover of employment, with victims often suffering without meeting perpetrators, resulting in the indirect nature of the act giving the appearance that it is victimless. Research shows, however, that occupational fraudsters display criminal thinking that parallels street-level offenders with similar behavioral traits that serve as risk factors.

Generally, fraudsters live well-ordered lives and are well respected in their communities and at work. They commit fraud in their workplace to fulfill a financial need when there is an opportunity to do so and when then can rationalize their deed (Cressey's fraud triangle, 1953). Trusted, well-paid employees risk their careers by stealing from their employers due to financial difficulties, lifestyle maintenance, anger, low loyalty, revenge, and boredom (KPMG, 2011). Occupational fraud is costlier than other crimes and affects more people (ACFE, Report to the Nations, 2012). It relies on deceit and concealment and often employs sophisticated technology.

Further to motive and opportunity, techniques of neutralization enable individuals to violate normative and ethical standards (Coleman, 2002). For example, by justifying theft as “borrowing,” criminal activities may be deemed to be a normal way of stealing or achieving business targets. Trying to prove that a fraudster intends to permanently deprive an organization can be difficult when the fraudster has claimed that he intends to repay the amount or has already done so. Offenders may justify their behavior by claiming that they are not really hurting anyone, that everyone else is doing it, or that the activities may have been carried out that way for many years. This may be a reflection on their culture or background.

The ACFE estimates that some $3.5 trillion of fraud is happening worldwide. The National Fraud Authority in the United Kingdom publishes its Annual Fraud Indicator every year, which estimates that fraud in 2011 was costing the UK economy over £38 billion a year, equating to a shocking £765 per adult per year. This figure includes estimated undetected losses.

In the Compliance Reporter article “UK Fraud at Record Level” (2012), KPMG reported the actual 2011 UK fraud to be £3.5 billion. The 2011 FraudTrack Report, released by accountancy firm BDO, revealed a significant increase in both the number and value of reported frauds in the United Kingdom in the previous year to the highest level of fraud since the report began in 2003. In 2010, there were 372 cases of reported fraud with an average value of £3.7 million each. This had risen to 413 cases with an average value of £5 million each.