Fraud Triangle - Literature review Example

Download file to see previous pages In rationalization, the fraudster justifies the crime to himself by way self-legitimizing the fraud (Lou and Wang 2009; Antenucci, Tackett, Wolf and Claypool 2009). The literature notes that a key concept in the fraud triangle pertains to a shift in the perception of the person in positions of trust as potential “trust violators” (Kassem and Higson 2012). This transition occurs when a trusted person comes to see himself or herself as being in a financial bind that cannot be shared, and which the person knows can be remedied by undertaking actions that are in direct violation of the trust that is bestowed on them. The impetus to action comes from being able to rationalize their action from seeing themselves no longer as trusted people but as people with the right to use the funds that have been put in their trust. The key strength of Wilson (2004) is that it provides a concrete context for understanding employee fraud in terms of the fraud triangle. The advantage of Ramamoorti (2008) is in being able to provide a way to synthesize recent research into fraud as a prelude to enhancing the practice of fraud accounting A strong point in Kassem and Higson (2012) meanwhile is that it is able to situate the fraud triangle in relation to newer fraud models that can be used to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the motivations and capabilities of the fraudster. However, the collective weakness of the above sources is that they lack a more robust discussion of the links of the fraud triangle to the more recent literature on fraud and criminal psychology in general (Wilson 2004; Kassem and Higson 2012; Ramamoorti 2008). The more recent literature discusses white collar crimes that involve fraud from the point of view of such crimes embodying the three aspects of the fraud triangle (Morales, Gendron and Guenin-Paracini 2014).  ...Download file to see next pagesRead More