Money, Morals and Motives An Exploratory Study into Why Bank Managers and Employees Commit Fraud at Work  

 

 This article is to explore motives for fraudulent offences at work. Depending on the position that is held, personal pressure comes to people in lower positions. It is very important to continue more research to see what can help to understand what motivates banking profession to commit these criminal defenses. Typical measures include: task rotation, improved internal communication, independent checks, and segregation of duties and enhanced systems of authorizations (Beasley et al., 2000; Wells, 2004). In the British financial sectors the exploratory factors on the subject has tended to treat the figure of the worker as a unitary one, with little attempt made to distinguish between different professions (Kapardis and Krambia-Kapardis, 2004.    There are three factors known as “fraud triangle,” which is seen from the theoretical perspective. The fraud triangle lists- opportunities, motives/incentives and rationalizations. First, research ion occupational crime has gained popularity in recent years and is now widely used by auditors and regulators to assess fraud risks in institutional settings (Gottchalk, 2010; Kassem and Higson, 2012). There are commonly identified pressures in fraud cases that falls under the financial label (Coleman, 1992; Jones, 2011). In the report, it listed personal pressures, work-related pressures, and external pressures, as some reasons that involved gambling, lifestyle change and personal debt.    The most common offenders by occupational status involves low-level or junior level, also technical or mid-management positions. These positions was taken to be one in which the employee had responsibility for the carrying out and overseeing of some technical duties. In the report it listed six categories that based reasons for fraud: 1. Personal financial pressures, 2. Work-related financial pressures, 3. External financial pressures, 4. Personal non-financial pressures, 5. Work-related non-financial pressures, and 6. External non-financial pressures. In conclusion, showing the different motives that were most common pressures in the work-force was personal circumstances, which showed 50% more than any other categories’ listed. Clearly, when these differences are presented an opportunity for thief seems to significantly able embezzlement or misappropriate actions.

 Work CitedGottschalk, P. (2010), “Theories of Financial Crime”, Journal of Financial Crime, Vol. 17No. 2, pp. 210-222.