The Fraud Triangle and Model of Criminogenesis

Alexander Glebovskiy

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijls.20210402.19

| Peer-Reviewed

The Fraud Triangle and Model of Criminogenesis

Alexander Glebovskiy

Published in International Journal of Law and Society (Volume 4, Issue 2)

Received: 30 April 2021 Accepted: 25 May 2021 Published: 31 May 2021

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

The fraud triangle (FT) predominantly focuses on individual perpetrators and ignores the complexity and diversity of causes of delinquency in business organisations. To this end, this article discusses the limitations of the FT in practice to analyse misconduct in the organisational context. The paper also provides suggestions to remediate conceptual weaknesses of the FT by addressing the realm of criminogenic antecedents facilitating, enabling and promoting illegal and unethical behaviour in organisational settings. In discussing the reasons as to why the FT fails to comprehensively explain the root-cause of misconduct displayed in businesses, this paper draws on relevant literature and theoretical perspectives on employee criminal and unethical conduct in the organisational context. The model of criminogenesis introduced in this article aims to evaluate the source of employee criminal and unethical activities. Thus, it reveals that employee behaviour is influenced by individual, organisational and environmental dynamics, including for instance: personality traits such as narcissistic, Machiavellian, and hubristic traits; criminogenic organisational settings; unethical organisational culture; poor leadership and social pressure. Employees lacking morality and self-regulation capabilities might be vulnerable to the influence of criminogenic forces, processes and conditions that increase individual propensity for unlawful and unethical practices. The general aim of the article is to contribute to the discussion on the causation of illicit and unethical acts carried out in, and by business organisations by connecting three different domains (environment, organisation, and individual) and addressing the effect of criminogenesis at the micro-, meso-, and macro- levels.

Published in	International Journal of Law and Society (Volume 4, Issue 2)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijls.20210402.19
Page(s)	115-127
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Fraud Triangle, Anti-fraud Management, Intrinsic Criminogenesis, Criminogenic Antecedents

References

[1]	Akers, R. L. (1998). Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime and Deviance. Boston: Northeastern.
[2]	Apel, R. & Paternoster, R. (2009) "Understanding ‘criminogenic’ corporate culture: what white-collar crime researchers can learn from studies of the adolescent employment-crime relationship" in Simpson, S. and Weisburd, D. (Eds). The Criminology of White-Collar Crime. New York, NY: Springer, p. 15-33.
[3]	Ashforth, B. & Anand, V. (2003) "The normalization of corruption in organisations". Research in Organisational Behaviour. 25, p.1-52
[4]	Beckert, J. (2010) “Institutional isomorphism revisited: convergence and divergence in institutional change”. Sociological Theory. 28, (2), p.150-166.
[5]	Berger, R. J. (2011). White-collar crime. The abuse of corporate and government power. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers
[6]	Bethune, R. A. (2015). Profiling White-Collar Criminals: What is White-Collar Crime, who perpetrates it and why? PhD thesis in criminology. The University of Edinburgh. [Online] Available from: https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1842/10609/Bethune2015.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y [Accessed 10 April 2021]
[7]	Beu, D., & Buckley, M. (2004) "Using accountability to create a more ethical climate". Human Resource Management Review. 14, p.67–83.
[8]	Box, S. (1983). Power, Crime, and Mystification. (2nd ed.). London: Tavistock.
[9]	Carsten, M. & Uhl-Bien, M. (2013) “Ethical followership: an examination of followership beliefs and crimes of obedience”. Journal of Leadership & Organisational Studies. 20, (1), p. 49-61.
[10]	Cassel, E. & Bernstein, D. (2007). Criminal Behavior. (2nd Edition). NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Incl, Publishers.
[11]	Chen, S. (2010) “The role of ethical leadership versus institutional constraints: a simulation study of financial misreporting by CEOs”. Journal of Business Ethics. 93, p. 33-52.
[12]	Clinard, M. B. (1992). Corporate Corruption. The Abuse of Power. New York: Praeger.
[13]	Cressey, D. (1953). Other People's Money: Study in the Social Psychology of Embezzlement. New York: Free Press.
[14]	DeKeseredy, W. S., Desmond, E. & Alvi, S. (2015). Deviance and Crime: Theory, Research and Policy. London: Routledge.
[15]	Dopfer, K., Foster, J. & Potts, J. (2004) „Micro-meso-macro”. Journal of Revolutionary Economics, 14, p. 263-279.
[16]	Dillon, J. (2007) “Reflections on widening participation: macro influences and micro implications.” Journal of the Institute for Access Studies and the European Access Network, 9, (2), p. 16-25.
[17]	DiMaggio P. J. & Powell, W. W. (1983) "The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields". American Sociological Review 48, (2), p. 147–160.
[18]	Durkheim, E. (1984). The Division of Labor in Society. New York: The Free Press.
[19]	Edmondson, A. C. (1996) "Learning from mistakes is easier said than done". J. Appl. Beh. Sci. 32, p. 5-28.
[20]	Frey, J. H. (1994) “Deviance of organizational subunits: the case of college athletic departments". Journal of Sport & Social Issues. 18, (2), p. 110-122.
[21]	Gao, Y. (2010) “Mimetic isomorphism, market competition, perceived benefit and bribery of firms in transitional China”, Australian Journal of Management. 35, (2), p. 203–222.
[22]	Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society, Berkeley: University of California Press.
[23]	Glebovskiy, A. (2019) “Criminogenic isomorphism and groupthink in the business context”. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior. 22, (1), pp. 22-42.
[24]	Glebovskiy, A. (2020) “Anti-fraud measures and inherent criminogenesis in business organisations” [Doctoral dissertation, Middlesex University London]. MDX Campus Repository. https://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/id/eprint/29904
[25]	Goldman, G. & Callaghan, C. W. (2015) "A Holistic Synthesis of the Organisation Theories". Journal of intercultural Management. 7, (4), p. 5 – 19.
[26]	Gottfredson, M. & Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
[27]	Hambrick, D. C., Finkelstein, S., Cho, T. & Jackson, E. M. (2004) "Isomprhism in reverse: Institutional theory as an explanation for recetn increases in intraindustry heterogeneity and managerial discretion". Research in Organizational Behavior. 26, p. 307–350.
[28]	Hamilton, V. L. & Sanders, J. (1992) "Responsibility and risk in organizational crimes of obedience". in Staw, B. M. and Cummings, L. L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior. 14. Greenwhich, CT: JAI Press, p. 49-90.
[29]	Heath, J. (2008) "Business Ethics and Moral Motivation: A Criminological Perspective". Journal of Business Ethics. 83, (4), p. 595-614.
[30]	Heckathorn, Douglas D. (1990) “The Micro-Macro Link”. Social Forces, 1990, Vol. 68. (3), p. 940 – 943.
[31]	Herbert, C., Green, G. S. & Larrogoite, V. (1998) "Clarifying the reach of a general theory of crime for organisatoinal offending: A comment on Reed and Yeager". Criminology. 36, (4), p. 867 – 884.
[32]	Hinrichs, K. (2007) “Follower propensity to commit crimes of obedience. The role of leadership beliefs”. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. 14 (1). p. 69-76.
[33]	Hofmann, W., Meindl, P., Mooijman, M. & Graham, J. (2018) “Morality and self-control: How they are intertwined and whether they differ.” Crime Directions in Psychological Science, 27, (4), p. 286-291.
[34]	Huber, W. D. (2017) “Forensic Accounting, Fraud Theory, and the End of the Fraud Triangle”. Journal of Theoretical Accounting Research, 12 (2), p. 28-48.
[35]	Huff, T. E. (1989) "The Micro-Macro Link. Jeffrey C. Alexander, Bernhard Giesen, Richard Munch, Neil J. Smelser ". American Journal of Sociology 95, (2), p. 456-458.
[36]	Jackall, R. (1988). Moral mazes: The world of corporate managers. New York: Oxford University Press.
[37]	Janis, I. (1972). Victims of Groupthink. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
[38]	Kaklauskas, A., Kelpsiene, L., Zavadskas, E., Bardauskiene, D., Kaklauskas, G., Urbonas, M. & Sorakas, V., (2011) “Crisis management in construction and real estate: conceptual modelling at the micro- meso- and macro levels”. Land Use Policy, 28, p. 280-293.
[39]	Kalbers, L. P. (2009) "Fraudulent financial reporting, corporate governance and ethics: 1987-2007". Review of Accounting and Finance. 8 (2), p. 187 – 209.
[40]	Klikauer, T. (2014) “Milgram and obedience to organisational authority”. Organisation 21, (6), p. 947-953.
[41]	Kramer, R. C. (2010) "Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory: Vaughan, Diane: The Normalization of Deviance". London: SAGE Publications, Inc., p. 977 – 979.
[42]	Kulik, B. W., O'Fallon, M. J. & Salimath, M. S (2008) "Do Competitive Environments Lead to the Rise and Spread of Unethical Behavior? Parallels from Enron". Journal of Business Ethics. 83, (4), p. 703-723.
[43]	Kwon, B., Farndale, E. & Park, J. (2016) “Employee voice and work engagement: macro, meso, and micro-level drivers of convergence?” Human Resource Management Review, 26, p. 327-337.
[44]	Leonard, W. N. & Weber, M. G. (1970) "Automakers and dealers: a study of criminogenic market forces". Law and Society Review. 4, p.407–424.
[45]	Lokanan, M. (2015) “Challenges to the fraud triangle: Questions on its usefulness”. Accounting Forum, 39 (3). pp. 201-224.
[46]	MacGregor, J. & Stuebs, M. (2014) "The Silent Samaritan Syndrome: Why the Whistle Remains Unblown". Journal of Business Ethics. 120 (2), p. 149-164.
[47]	Merton, R. (1938) "Social structure and anomie". American Sociological Review. 3, p.672-682
[48]	Messina, F. M. (1997) "Common-sense approaches to fraud awareness prevention detection". Nonprofit World. 15, (4), p. 36–38.
[49]	Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper & Row.
[50]	Millman, M. (1977). The Unkindest Cut. New York: Morrow
[51]	Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Klebe Treviño, L., Baker, V. L. & Mayer, D. M. (2012) "Why employees do bad things: moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior". Personnel Psychology. 65 (1), p. 1-48.
[52]	Morales, J., Gendron, Y. & Guénin-Paracini, H. (2014) "The construction of the risky individual and vigilant organization: A genealogy of the fraud triangle". Accounting, Organizations and Society. 39, p. 170–194.
[53]	Morang, S. C. (2016) "A clueless organization? Wells Fargo phony-account fraud teaches us lessons". Fraud Magazine. 31, (6).
[54]	Murphy, P. & Dacin, T. (2011) “Psychological pathways to fraud: understanding and preventing fraud in organisations”. Journal of Business Ethics. 101, p. 601-618.
[55]	Needleman, M. & Needleman, C. (1979) "Organizational crime: two models of criminogenesis". The Sociological Quarterly. 20, (20), p. 517–528.
[56]	Palacios, J. H. (2015) Corporate crime – its underestimation and breaching to ethics and humanity from a criminological perspectives [Online]. Available at http://cienciasjuridicas.javeriana.edu.co/documents/3722972/6187126/7+Hernandez.pdf/0c8700ec-216f-4dbb-8761-23e8a4022f6b [Assessed on 25 March 2021]
[57]	Palmer, D. & Maher, M. (2006) “Developing the process model of collective corruption”. Journal of Management Inquiry. 15, (4), p. 363-370.
[58]	Piquero, N. L. & Piquero, A. R. (2006) "Control balance and exploitive corporate crime". Criminology. 44, (2), p. 397-431.
[59]	Porter, M. (1980). Competitive Strategy. New York: Free Press.
[60]	Power, M. (2013) “The apparatus of fraud risk”. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38 (6), p. 525-543.
[61]	Reed, G. E. & Yeager, P. C. (1996) "Organizational offending and neoclassical criminology: Challenging the reach of A General Theory of Crime". Criminology. 34, p. 357-382.
[62]	Ruggiero, V. (2015). “Justifying crimes of the powerful”. In G. Barak (Ed.). The Routledge International Handbook of the Crimes of the Powerful. London: Routledge, p. 62-72.
[63]	Shin, Y. (2012) “CEO ethical leadership, ethical climate, climate strength, and collective organisational citizenship behavior”. Journal of Business Ethics. 108, p. 299-312.
[64]	Sliter, J. (2007) "The price of corporate crime: the risks to business". Journal of Financial Crime. 14, (1), p. 12 – 16.
[65]	Sutherland, E. H. (1949). White-collar Crime. New York, NY: Holt Rinehart & Winston.
[66]	Sykes, G. & Matza, D. (1957) "Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency". American Sociological Review. 22, p. 664–670.
[67]	Talib, N. & Fitzgerald, R. (2016) “Micro-meso-macro movements; a multi-level critical discourse analysis framework to examine metaphors and the value of truth in policy texts. Critical Discourse Studies”, 13, (5), p. 531-547.
[68]	Tullock, G. (1996) "Corruption theory and practice". Contemporary Economic Policy. 14, p. 6–13.
[69]	Vaughan, D. (1998) “Rational choice, situated action, and the social control of organizations". Law & Society Review. 32, p. 23-61.
[70]	Vaughan, D. (1999a) “The Dark Side of Organizations: Mistake, Misconduct, and Disaster.” Annual Review of Sociology. 25, (2), p. 271–305.
[71]	Vaughan, D. (1999b). “The Macro-Micro Connection, Culture, and Boundary Work.” in Patricia Ewick, Robert Kagan and Austin Sarat (eds.). Social Science, Social Policy, and Law. New York: Russell Sage, pp. 289–319.
[72]	Vaughan, D. (2002a) “Criminology and the sociology of organizations”. Crime, Law & Social Change. 37, p. 117-136.
[73]	Vaughan, D. (2002b) “Signals and interpretive work: the role of culture in a theory of practical action” in Karen A. Cerulo (ed.). Culture in Mind: Toward a Sociology of Culture and Cognition. New York: Routledge, p. 28-54.
[74]	Vaughan, D. (2005) "The normalization of deviance: Signals of danger, situated action, and risk". In H. Montgomery, R. Lipshitz, & B. Brehmer (Eds.). How professionals make decisions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[75]	Vaughan, D. (2007) "Beyond macro- and micro-levels of analysis, organizations, and the cultural fix". in H. N. Pontell, ed., & G. Geis (Eds.). International handbook of white-collar and corporate crime, p. 3–24.
[76]	Vernard, B. & Hanafi, M. (2008) "Organisational Isomorphism and Corruption in Financial Institutions: Empirical Research in Emerging Countries". Journal of Business Ethics. 81, p. 481 – 498.
[77]	Wells, J. T. (1997) Occupational fraud and abuse: How to prevent and detect asset misappropriation, corruption and fraudulent statements. Austin, Texas: Obsidian Publishing Company.
[78]	Weick, K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing (2nd. ed.). Addison Wesley: Reading MA.
[79]	Whyte, D. (2009). Crimes of the Powerful: A Reader. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
[80]	Wikström, P. (2004) Crime as alternative: Towards a cross-level situational action theory of crime causation. In Beyond empiricism: Institutions and intentions in the study of crime, ed. Mccord, J. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
[81]	Wikström, P. & Treiber, K. (2007) „The role of self-control in crime causation beyond Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime.” European Journal of Criminology, 4, (2), 237-264.
[82]	Wikström, P. (2010) Situational action theory. In Cullen, FT & Wilcox, P (eds), Encyclopedia of criminological theory, SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 1001-1008.
[83]	Wolfe, D. T. & Hermanson, D. R. (2004) "The fraud diamond: Considering the four elements of fraud". The CPA Journal. 74, (12), p. 38-42.
[84]	Yusof, N. A. M. & Lai, M. L. (2014) "An integrative model in predicting corporate tax fraud". Journal of Financial Crime. 21, (4), p. 424-432.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Alexander Glebovskiy. (2021). The Fraud Triangle and Model of Criminogenesis. International Journal of Law and Society, 4(2), 115-127. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20210402.19

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Alexander Glebovskiy. The Fraud Triangle and Model of Criminogenesis. Int. J. Law Soc. 2021, 4(2), 115-127. doi: 10.11648/j.ijls.20210402.19

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Alexander Glebovskiy. The Fraud Triangle and Model of Criminogenesis. Int J Law Soc. 2021;4(2):115-127. doi: 10.11648/j.ijls.20210402.19

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijls.20210402.19,
  author = {Alexander Glebovskiy},
  title = {The Fraud Triangle and Model of Criminogenesis},
  journal = {International Journal of Law and Society},
  volume = {4},
  number = {2},
  pages = {115-127},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijls.20210402.19},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20210402.19},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijls.20210402.19},
  abstract = {The fraud triangle (FT) predominantly focuses on individual perpetrators and ignores the complexity and diversity of causes of delinquency in business organisations. To this end, this article discusses the limitations of the FT in practice to analyse misconduct in the organisational context. The paper also provides suggestions to remediate conceptual weaknesses of the FT by addressing the realm of criminogenic antecedents facilitating, enabling and promoting illegal and unethical behaviour in organisational settings. In discussing the reasons as to why the FT fails to comprehensively explain the root-cause of misconduct displayed in businesses, this paper draws on relevant literature and theoretical perspectives on employee criminal and unethical conduct in the organisational context. The model of criminogenesis introduced in this article aims to evaluate the source of employee criminal and unethical activities. Thus, it reveals that employee behaviour is influenced by individual, organisational and environmental dynamics, including for instance: personality traits such as narcissistic, Machiavellian, and hubristic traits; criminogenic organisational settings; unethical organisational culture; poor leadership and social pressure. Employees lacking morality and self-regulation capabilities might be vulnerable to the influence of criminogenic forces, processes and conditions that increase individual propensity for unlawful and unethical practices. The general aim of the article is to contribute to the discussion on the causation of illicit and unethical acts carried out in, and by business organisations by connecting three different domains (environment, organisation, and individual) and addressing the effect of criminogenesis at the micro-, meso-, and macro- levels.},
 year = {2021}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - The Fraud Triangle and Model of Criminogenesis
AU  - Alexander Glebovskiy
Y1  - 2021/05/31
PY  - 2021
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20210402.19
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijls.20210402.19
T2  - International Journal of Law and Society
JF  - International Journal of Law and Society
JO  - International Journal of Law and Society
SP  - 115
EP  - 127
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2640-1908
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20210402.19
AB  - The fraud triangle (FT) predominantly focuses on individual perpetrators and ignores the complexity and diversity of causes of delinquency in business organisations. To this end, this article discusses the limitations of the FT in practice to analyse misconduct in the organisational context. The paper also provides suggestions to remediate conceptual weaknesses of the FT by addressing the realm of criminogenic antecedents facilitating, enabling and promoting illegal and unethical behaviour in organisational settings. In discussing the reasons as to why the FT fails to comprehensively explain the root-cause of misconduct displayed in businesses, this paper draws on relevant literature and theoretical perspectives on employee criminal and unethical conduct in the organisational context. The model of criminogenesis introduced in this article aims to evaluate the source of employee criminal and unethical activities. Thus, it reveals that employee behaviour is influenced by individual, organisational and environmental dynamics, including for instance: personality traits such as narcissistic, Machiavellian, and hubristic traits; criminogenic organisational settings; unethical organisational culture; poor leadership and social pressure. Employees lacking morality and self-regulation capabilities might be vulnerable to the influence of criminogenic forces, processes and conditions that increase individual propensity for unlawful and unethical practices. The general aim of the article is to contribute to the discussion on the causation of illicit and unethical acts carried out in, and by business organisations by connecting three different domains (environment, organisation, and individual) and addressing the effect of criminogenesis at the micro-, meso-, and macro- levels.
VL  - 4
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Alexander Glebovskiy

Department of Criminology and Sociology, Middlesex University, London, UK

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Alexander Glebovskiy. (2021). The Fraud Triangle and Model of Criminogenesis. International Journal of Law and Society, 4(2), 115-127. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20210402.19

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Alexander Glebovskiy. The Fraud Triangle and Model of Criminogenesis. Int. J. Law Soc. 2021, 4(2), 115-127. doi: 10.11648/j.ijls.20210402.19

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Alexander Glebovskiy. The Fraud Triangle and Model of Criminogenesis. Int J Law Soc. 2021;4(2):115-127. doi: 10.11648/j.ijls.20210402.19

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijls.20210402.19,
  author = {Alexander Glebovskiy},
  title = {The Fraud Triangle and Model of Criminogenesis},
  journal = {International Journal of Law and Society},
  volume = {4},
  number = {2},
  pages = {115-127},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijls.20210402.19},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20210402.19},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijls.20210402.19},
  abstract = {The fraud triangle (FT) predominantly focuses on individual perpetrators and ignores the complexity and diversity of causes of delinquency in business organisations. To this end, this article discusses the limitations of the FT in practice to analyse misconduct in the organisational context. The paper also provides suggestions to remediate conceptual weaknesses of the FT by addressing the realm of criminogenic antecedents facilitating, enabling and promoting illegal and unethical behaviour in organisational settings. In discussing the reasons as to why the FT fails to comprehensively explain the root-cause of misconduct displayed in businesses, this paper draws on relevant literature and theoretical perspectives on employee criminal and unethical conduct in the organisational context. The model of criminogenesis introduced in this article aims to evaluate the source of employee criminal and unethical activities. Thus, it reveals that employee behaviour is influenced by individual, organisational and environmental dynamics, including for instance: personality traits such as narcissistic, Machiavellian, and hubristic traits; criminogenic organisational settings; unethical organisational culture; poor leadership and social pressure. Employees lacking morality and self-regulation capabilities might be vulnerable to the influence of criminogenic forces, processes and conditions that increase individual propensity for unlawful and unethical practices. The general aim of the article is to contribute to the discussion on the causation of illicit and unethical acts carried out in, and by business organisations by connecting three different domains (environment, organisation, and individual) and addressing the effect of criminogenesis at the micro-, meso-, and macro- levels.},
 year = {2021}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - The Fraud Triangle and Model of Criminogenesis
AU  - Alexander Glebovskiy
Y1  - 2021/05/31
PY  - 2021
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20210402.19
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijls.20210402.19
T2  - International Journal of Law and Society
JF  - International Journal of Law and Society
JO  - International Journal of Law and Society
SP  - 115
EP  - 127
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2640-1908
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20210402.19
AB  - The fraud triangle (FT) predominantly focuses on individual perpetrators and ignores the complexity and diversity of causes of delinquency in business organisations. To this end, this article discusses the limitations of the FT in practice to analyse misconduct in the organisational context. The paper also provides suggestions to remediate conceptual weaknesses of the FT by addressing the realm of criminogenic antecedents facilitating, enabling and promoting illegal and unethical behaviour in organisational settings. In discussing the reasons as to why the FT fails to comprehensively explain the root-cause of misconduct displayed in businesses, this paper draws on relevant literature and theoretical perspectives on employee criminal and unethical conduct in the organisational context. The model of criminogenesis introduced in this article aims to evaluate the source of employee criminal and unethical activities. Thus, it reveals that employee behaviour is influenced by individual, organisational and environmental dynamics, including for instance: personality traits such as narcissistic, Machiavellian, and hubristic traits; criminogenic organisational settings; unethical organisational culture; poor leadership and social pressure. Employees lacking morality and self-regulation capabilities might be vulnerable to the influence of criminogenic forces, processes and conditions that increase individual propensity for unlawful and unethical practices. The general aim of the article is to contribute to the discussion on the causation of illicit and unethical acts carried out in, and by business organisations by connecting three different domains (environment, organisation, and individual) and addressing the effect of criminogenesis at the micro-, meso-, and macro- levels.
VL  - 4
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download