AN ANALYSIS OF FRAUD FROM A CRIMINOLOGIST PERSPECTIVE.

STANLEY N. KINYANJUI THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN AFRICA

1

1 | P a g e

ANALYSIS OF FRAUD FROM A CRIMINOLOGIST PERSPECTIVE.

INTRODUCTION.

What is central to the essence of criminology is the study of crime. What actions are defined as

crimes and why? What causes crimes? How are crimes dealt with? What can prevent them? The

crux of this paper is to analyze and frame the crime of fraud vis-à-vis the criminologist

perspective.

Wherefore having due regards to the aims of criminology, the four core Chapters (As divided

herein) of this paper shall seek to answer:

1) What actions constitute and what is the definition of fraud?

2) What causes Fraud?

3) How are cases of Fraud dealt with? and;

4) What measure can be used to prevent fraud?

Fraud has been banished to a contested corner of white collar crime, where many aspects of it do

not entirely fit and the focus is of minimal interest… fraud is probably the most expensive crime

to society; it is carried out by the most people; it inflicts the widest damage upon society; it is of

limited interest to the police; and worst of all it is probably growing.1

CHAPTER 1:

1.0: WHAT ACTIONS OR WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF FRAUD?

1.1 Definition of Fraud.

There are but three ways to illegally relieve a victim of his money: force, trickery or larceny. All

those offences that employ trickery are frauds 2

Many scholars have formulated many definitions of fraud that have tried to encompass all its

elements and they fall not short of legal writers and those tasked with investigating and

1 http://compass.port.ac.uk/UoP/file/ca128869-cec9-4e47-89d2-

c817db4b4af9/1/The%20Emergence%20of%20Counter%20Fraud%20Studies_IMSLRN.zip/page_04.htm accessed

on 11th Mar. 2015. 2 Joseph T. Wells, Occupational Fraud Abuse, Obsidian Publishing Co., 1997 at Pg. 4.

STANLEY N. KINYANJUI THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN AFRICA

2

2 | P a g e

prosecuting fraud. However, the one common element to most of them is the notion of deception

in order to make some form of gain. In legal terms, until recently, Stephens‟s History of the

Criminal Law of England3 has been regarded as the most authoritative definition of fraud and

fraud related offences in the English legal systems4. Thus,

“I shall not attempt to construct a definition which will meet every case which might be

suggested, but there is little danger in saying that whenever the words 'fraud' and 'intent to

defraud', or 'fraudulently' occur in the definition of a crime two elements at least are essential to

the commission of the crime: namely first, deceit or an intention to deceive or in some cases

mere secrecy; and secondly, either actual injury or possible injury or an intent to expose some

person either to actual injury or to risk of possible injury by means of that deceit or secrecy.”5

(Stephen, 1883, P.121)

professional accountants have added to these legal definitions and opinions Thus, Davies (2000,

p. 3) sees it as All those activities involving dishonesty and deception that can drain value from a

business, directly or indirectly, whether or not there is personal benefit to the fraudster.6

What these definitions suggest is that fraud is based upon some form of intention of deception

and/or dishonesty alongside the achievement of some kind of gain. Clearly this still leaves a wide

range of potential behaviors that could be regarded as fraud. For example, politicians frequently

promise the electorate things they know they cannot provide for the purpose of achieving a gain

(election) and yet most would not consider this a fraud for which they should be prosecuted.

Thus it is perhaps better to distinguish between two things: fraud as a theoretical concept, which

might include a very wide range of potential behaviors, some difficult to define legally as fraud;

and fraud as a legal concept, providing a narrower and more specific definition regarding the

actions that can be prosecuted as frauds.7

3 James F. Stephen, A History of the Criminal Law of England (1883), London, Macmillan. Retreived via

https://archive.org/stream/ahistorycrimina01unkngoog/ahistorycrimina01unkngoog_djvu.txt on 11th March 2015. 4 Geoff Smith, Mark Button, Les Johnston, Kwabena Frimpong, Studying Fraud as White Collar Crime, Palgrave

Macmillan, 2011. At P.13. 5 Supra n. 2 at P.121.

6 Davies D, Fraud Watch, ABG Professional Information, 2

nd Ed., 2000.

7 See: http://compass.port.ac.uk/UoP/file/deedd350-c7e1-44e4-bbf4-

4cdcae6efdc8/1/What%20is%20Fraud_IMSLRN.zip/page_02.htm accessed on 11th Mar. 2015.

STANLEY N. KINYANJUI THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN AFRICA

3

3 | P a g e

1.2. What Constitutes fraud.

Arlidge, Parry and Gatt point to the necessity for there to be deceit, or intention to deceive, or

secrecy; and secondly, for actual or potential injury to a second party.8

The legal definition that “Fraud consists of some deceitful practice or willful device, resorted to

with intent to deprive another of his right, or in some manner to do him an injury”9 unravels

essentials that need to be proved to make of substance a case of fraud; that there must be:

(1) A false statement of a material fact,

(2) Knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue,

(3) Intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim,

(4) Justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and

(5) Injury to the alleged victim as a result.

1.3. Examples of Fraud.

An exhaustive list of what actions are fraudulent cannot be comprehended given the extensive

nature of what is to be regarded as deception and the forever growing contemporary society. A

long yet unexhausted list has been drawn and can be seen in the List of Entries to Joseph T.

Well‟s Encyclopedia of Fraud10

. However, fraud can be classified into three: corruption, asset

fraud, financial statement fraud.

* For further sub branches see figure 1 and for forms of internet fraud see figure 2 in the

appendix at the end of this paper.

CHAPTER 2.

2.0. WHAT CAUSES FRAUD?

2.1. Edwin H. Sutherland - Differential Association Theory.

8 Arlidge, Anthony, Parry, Jacques, Gatt, Ian, FRAUD, Sweet and Maxwell 1996.

9 The Black‟s Law Dictionary definition of fraud. Retrieved via http://thelawdictionary.org/fraud/ on 11

th Mar. 2015.

10 Wells, T. Joseph. Encyclopedia of Fraud, © 2002, Austin, TX: Obsidian Press.

STANLEY N. KINYANJUI THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN AFRICA

4

4 | P a g e

In his Differential Association theory, Sutherland posited that “Criminal behavior is learned in

association with those who define such behavior favorably and in isolation from those who

define it unfavorably. . . a person in an appropriate situation engages in such criminal behavior if,

and only if, the weight of the favorable definitions exceeds the weight of the unfavorable

definitions.”11

It was Sutherland who coined the term white-collar crime in 1939 in a speech. He intended the

definition to mean criminal acts of corporations and individuals acting in their corporate

capacity. Since that time, however, the term has come to mean almost any financial or economic

crime, from the mailroom to the boardroom.

In Principles of Criminology12

and White-Collar Crime13

, Sutherland developed his theory of

differential association. Sutherland studied fraud committed by business executives against

shareholders and the general public.

Sutherland drew from the work of E.A. Ross, who published Sin and Society in 1907. Ross

asserted that American capitalism was threatened by “the criminaloid,” i.e., businessmen whose

greed and moral impairment drove them to put acquiring money above all other considerations,

including the welfare and lives of thousands of citizens and the continued health of the capitalist

system. He posited that this criminaloid prospered because a self-satisfied public allowed him to

hide behind a façade of respectability.14

Sutherland propounds that indeed white collar crime (or fraud for the purpose of this paper) is

commissioned by criminals who have acquired this skills and learnt them from associating with

persons who already are engaged in the crime. Indeed, it is normal for a person to learn stealing

by living with a thief as opposed to living with an honest man and can acquire honesty by living

with an honest person as opposed to a thief.

2.2. Donald Cressey – The Fraud Triangle.

In the late 1940s while researching for his doctoral thesis, criminologist Donald R. Cressey

interviewed nearly 200 incarcerated embezzlers, including convicted executives. He found the

11

A review of Sutherland’s White Collar Crime by Robert C. Sorensen, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1931-1951) Vol. 41, No. 1 (May - Jun., 1950), p. 80. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org 12

Sutherland, Edwin H. (1924) Principles of Criminology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 13

Sutherland, Edwin H. (1949) White Collar Crime, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 14

http://dmwatson.homestead.com/files/CAUSES_OF_FRAUD.pdf accessed on 11th Mar. 2015.

STANLEY N. KINYANJUI THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN AFRICA

5

5 | P a g e

great majority committed fraud to meet their financial obligations. Cressey observed that two

other factors had to be present for employees to commit fraud. They must perceive an

opportunity to commit and conceal their crimes, and be able to rationalize their offenses as

something other than criminal activity.

Cressey concluded that individuals commit fraud when three factors are present: Its elements are;

pressure or motive, opportunity, rationalization. Its occurs when someone with financial

need(motive) gain improper access to funds(opportunity) and is able to justify the act to

themselves and or others(rationalization)15

. This was then documented in his work In Other

People‟s Money: A Study in the Social Psychology of Embezzlement16

and known as the Fraud

Triangle.

Aspects of the Fraud triangle.17

1) Opportunity to commit fraud is possible when peoples have access to assets and

information that allows them to both commit and conceal fraud.

2) Motivation, or can be referred to as incentive, is another aspect of the fraud triangle, it is

a pressure or a “need” felt by the person who commits fraud. It might be a real financial

or other type of need, such as high medical bills or debts. Or it could be a perceived

financial need, such as a person who has a desire for material goods but not the means to

get them. Motivators can also be non-financial. There may be high pressure for good

results at work or a need to cover up someone‟s poor performance. Addictions such as

gambling and drugs may also motivate someone to commit fraud

3) Rationalization involves a person reconciling his/her behavior with the commonly

accepted notions of decency and trust. For those who are generally dishonest, it is

probably easier to rationalize a fraud. For those with higher moral standards, it is

probably not so easy. They have to convince themselves that fraud is OK with “excuses”

for their behavior.

Further, Cressey catalogued six types of “nonshareable” problems that provoke fraud: inability to

pay debts, problems resulting from personal failure, business reversals, physical isolation, status

gaining, and employer-employee relations.18

15

Supra n. 10. At P.105. 16

Cressey R. Donald, Other People's Money: A Study in the Social Psychology of Embezzlement, Free Press, 1953. 17

Information retrieved from http://www.lacpa.org.lb/includes/images/docs/tc/tc363.pdf 18

Supra n. 10 at P.108.

STANLEY N. KINYANJUI THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN AFRICA

6

6 | P a g e

Being an associate of Edwin Sutherland, Cressey has repeatedly posited in his standard college

text on Criminology that "the people of the business world are probably more criminalistic than

the people of the slums.19

*See Figure 3 in the Appendix of this paper for a diagram of Cressey’s Fraud Triangle.

2.3: Dr. Steve Albrecht, Keith Howe, and Marshall Romney – The Nine Motivators of fraud

and Alberchts’s Fraud Scale.

Dr. Steve Albrecht, Keith Howe, and Marshall Romney, studied frauds in corporate settings in

Deterring Fraud: The Internal Auditor‟s Perspective20

. They classified nine motivators of fraud.21

1. Living beyond means- this is where a person is trying to live way above their actual

standards, making them have to go beyond their way to get something.

2. Overwhelming desire for personal gain- this is where one has a great desire to fulfil

what they desire in life.

3. High personal debt- this may cause one stress on where they will get money and may

result one to commit fraud to get money.

4. Close association with customers- this maybe be a cause of temptation where you

know that you have personal informational and details on somebody and you can get easy

access to their funds.

5. Perception that pay was incommensurate with duties- this means one believes they

can‟t work if they are not getting a financial gain in form of salaries or wages, hence if

they are not paid or are paid little wages they may turn to fraud to justify this unjust

wages.

6. “Wheeler-dealer” attitude- this is the attitude of a „hustler‟ where one will go to

extreme ends to get something, including deceiving someone through fraud.

7. Feeling challenged to beat the system- systems have been put in place to handle issues

of finances, but some people may feel smart enough and try to hack these systems and

access money,

19

Edwin H. Sutherland & Donald R. Cressey, Criminology 51 (10th ed. 1978); Edwin H. Sutherland et al.,

Criminology 66 (11th ed. 1992) (emphasis added). 20

W. Steve Albrecht, Keith R. Howe, Marshall B. Romney, Deterring fraud: the internal auditor's perspective,

Institute of Internal Auditors Research Foundation, 1984 21

Id., p.111.

STANLEY N. KINYANJUI THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN AFRICA

7

7 | P a g e

8. Excessive gambling habits-gambling process is a process that involves deceit in order

to get a financial gain or profit, which in itself is fraud and can create greed that results in

stealing.

9. Undue family or peer pressure- family members or friend may entice one to participate

in fraudulent activities say maybe because of a financial need that one may have or to

prove a point to friends and colleagues.

It is important to note that evident from Albrecht‟s list, his motivators are very similar to the

“nonshareable” financial problems Cressey identified.

In many ways, the study by Albrecht et al. supported Cressey‟s model. Like Cressey‟s study, the

Albrecht study suggests there are three factors similar to those in Cressey‟s fraud triangle i.e

Opportunity, pressure or motive and Rationalization. To explain this idea, he formulated the

Fraud scale that ranked situational pressures, perceived opportunities, and personal integrity.

The scale explained that when situational pressures and perceived opportunities are high and

personal integrity is low, occupational fraud is much more likely to occur than when the opposite

is true.

Albrecht describes situational pressures as “The immediate problems individuals experience

within their environments,” usually high personal debts or financial losses. Opportunities to

commit fraud, Albrecht says, may be created by deficient or missing internal controls—those of

the employee or the company. Personal integrity “Refers to the personal code of ethical behavior

each person adopts.22

*See Figure 4 in the Appendix of this paper for a diagram of Albrecht’s Fraud Scale.

2.4. The Hollinger-Clark 1983 Study.

In 1983, Richard C Hollinger and John P. Clark published Theft by Employees23

, the result of a

federally funded survey of almost 10,000 employees. The researchers concluded the most

common reason employees committed fraud had little to do with opportunity, but more with

motivation—the more dissatisfied the employee, the more likely he or she was to engage in

criminal behavior. One criminologist described the phenomenon as “wages in kind.” All of us

22

Id., 112. 23

R C Hollinger ; J P Clark, Theft by Employees, LexingtonBooks, 1983.

STANLEY N. KINYANJUI THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN AFRICA

8

8 | P a g e

have a sense of our own worth; if we believe we are not being fairly treated or adequately

compensated, statistically we are at much higher risk of trying to balance the scales.24

They found that younger workers have a greater tendency to steal and engage in

counterproductive activity, perhaps because they are less committed to their organizations and

experience less job satisfaction.

They also found out that the bigger fraudsters were the ones who had access to a company‟s

assets and cash. Senior officials with financial authority stole less often but in greater amounts

than employees in lower positions.

Hollinger and Clark found substantial evidence that employees who engage in other types of

occupational abuse, such as calling in sick when not, arriving late and leaving early, taking

extended breaks and showing sloppy workmanship, are the same employees who commit theft

and occupational fraud.25

Throughout the study Hollinger and Clark emphasized the structure and behavioral norms of the

workplace, were the reasons why people committed fraud.

2.5. R. Merton and E. Schur – Social Structure theory.

Robert Merton26

determined that social structures provide the chief motivation for misconduct.

Capitalist competition, the importance of money in society, and the erosion of norms that

encourage legitimate moneymaking behavior all encourage individuals to commit crimes.

The contemporary industrial society according to Merton is one that is founded on the doctrine

of the ends justifying the means where we have individuals whose goal is making money

regardless of the legitimacy in which they have used to acquire the riches thus producing a state

of “anomie,” or normlessness, in its citizens. Without ethical guidance, a person will use any

means necessary to attain money and power.

Edwin Schural so located the impulse for economic crime in social structures. Schur asserted that

America hosted so much crime because “American society has what might be termed capitalism

with a vengeance—a reverence for the values of individualism, competition, and profit of such

24

Joseph T. Wells, “Why Employees Commit Fraud, Journal of Accountancy, AICFA, Feb 2001. At. P. 1 Retreived

from http://www.journalofaccountancy.com on 11th

March 2015. 25

Maeda Martha, The Complete Guide to Spotting Accounting Fraud & Cover-ups: Everything You Need to Know

Explained Simply, Atlantic Publishing Group, Inc. 2010. 26

Merton, R.K., Social Theory and Social Structure, (1967), New York: Free Press.

STANLEY N. KINYANJUI THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN AFRICA

9

9 | P a g e

intensity as to provide incentives to crime that go well beyond a level that must be considered

inevitable in a modern complex society.”27

CHAPTER 3:

3.0. HOW ARE CASES OF FRAUD DEALT WITH?

3.1. Kenyan Scenario.

In Kenya, There are laws mainly the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act28

and The Penal

Code29

that state the different types of crimes that fall into the category of fraud. For example,

Section 328 of The Penal Code stipulates that fraudulent appropriation or accounting by directors

or officers is an offence where the perpetrator is liable for an imprisonment for 7 years. Another

example is Section 48 of The Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, 2003 states the penalty

for offences in Part 5 of the Act as a fine not exceeding one million shillings, or to imprisonment

for a term not exceeding ten years, or to both; and an additional mandatory fine.

As is Evident, the commission of fraud in Kenya can be prosecuted as either a criminal or civil

matter. Criminal in the sense that if the offended party is the state or the public and civil if the

offended party is a person or a legal entity.

Further there is establishment of The EACC is a public body established under Section 3 (1) of

the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) Act, 2011 that replaced the Kenya Anti-

Corruption Commission. This body is mandated “To combat and prevent corruption and

economic crime in Kenya through law enforcement, preventive measures, public education and

promotion of standards and practices of integrity, ethics and anti-corruption.”30

3.2. International Scenario.

27

Retrieved from http://dmwatson.homestead.com/files/CAUSES_OF_FRAUD.pdf at Page.6. 28

2003 29

The Penal Code Cap 63 Laws of Kenya. 30

As per the EACC Mandate retrieved from the EACC website; http://www.eacc.go.ke/default.asp?pageid=3

STANLEY N. KINYANJUI THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN AFRICA

10

10 | P a g e

The international Arena is rich in laws and organizations that deal with fraud cases. For rich

analysis, a case study of Canada, United Kingdom and the United States of America is

paramount as they can be said to form precedence over other legal systems.

Canada

Section 380(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada punishes fraudsters by imprisonment for a term

not exceeding two years, or punishable on summary conviction, In addition to the penalties

outlined, the court can also issue a prohibition order under s. 380.2 (preventing a person from

"seeking, obtaining or continuing any employment, or becoming or being a volunteer in any

capacity, that involves having authority over the real property, money or valuable security of

another person"). It can also make a restitution order under s. 380.3.

United kingdom.

England and Wales and Northern Ireland

The Fraud Act 2006 (c 35)

The Act gives a statutory definition of the criminal offence of fraud, defining it in three classes—

fraud by misrepresentation, abuse of power and failure of disclosure. Any person charged with

fraud is liable to a fine or imprisonment for up to twelve months on summary conviction (six

months in Northern Ireland), or a fine or imprisonment for up to ten years on conviction on

indictment.

National Fraud Authority

The National Fraud Authority (NFA) is the government agency co-ordinating the counter-fraud

response in the UK.

CIFAS - The UK's Fraud Prevention Service

CIFAS - The UK's Fraud Prevention Service is a not-for-profit membership association

representing the private and public sectors. CIFAS is dedicated to the prevention of fraud,

including staff fraud, and the identification of financial and related crime. Historically the

acronym stood for 'Credit Industry Fraud Avoidance Service', although the company no longer

operates under this name as the remit has broadened.31

United States

To establish a claim of fraud, most jurisdictions in the United States require that each element be

plead with particularity and be proved with clear, cogent, and convincing evidence (very

31

Information retrieved from www.wikipedia.com on 11th

Mar. 2015.

STANLEY N. KINYANJUI THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN AFRICA

11

11 | P a g e

probable evidence). The measure of damages in fraud cases is computed using the "benefit of

bargain" rule, which is the difference between the value of the property had it been as

represented and its actual value. Special damages may be allowed if shown proximately caused

by defendant's fraud and the damage amounts are proved with specificity.

In General.

Fraudsters are dealt with in two ways:i.e., via the institution of:

a) Criminal proceedings

b) Civil proceedings

In criminal proceedings, penalties include:32

i) Monetary fines

ii) Restitution

iii) Forfeiture of property

iv) Probation

v) License revocation, commission suspension, debarment

vi) Prison (for individuals)

In civil proceedings, the penalties include all the penalties as in criminal proceedings except

from Probation and prison. Further award for damages are at times granted.

CHAPTER 4:

4.0: WHAT MEASURE CAN BE USED TO PREVENT FRAUD?

Whereas there is worldwide acknowledgement of Donald Cressey‟s Fraud Triangle as an

explanation as to why people engage in fraud, the prevention of fraud in this section has been

divided into each of the three elements of the fraud triangle for an in depth solution to preventing

fraud.

4.1. Prevention of opportunity to defraud.

32

McCombs Knowledge To Go, Corporate Governance and Corporate Fraud, Nov. 11th 2014. At Slide No. 11.

Retreived from http://www.mccombs.utexas.edu on 11th

Mar. 2015.

STANLEY N. KINYANJUI THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN AFRICA

12

12 | P a g e

James T. Wells33 states that To deter opportunity one needs to divide responsibility. If one

person controls both the books and the assets, the ability to commit fraud is limited only by that

person‟s imagination. But if another employee shares a task, it is less likely a perpetrator can

succeed. Furthermore, if an employee needs help to defraud an organization, opportunity is

greatly reduced. It is one thing to commit a fraud by yourself, quite another to ask someone to

aid in your scheme. Moreover, Cressey34

propounds that, The opportunities for fraud are always

myriad, though the lack of internal controls over funds is a chief factor. Removing temptation

remains the best deterrent of all.

4.2. Prevention of pressure to defraud.

Social control in the workplace, according to Hollinger-Clark, consists of both formal and

informal social controls. The former control can be described as the internalization by the

employee of the group norms of the organization; the latter, external pressures through both

positive and negative sanctions.

4.3. Prevention of rationalization to defraud.

Hollinger and Clark found that the single most effective way to prevent theft was to raise the

chances, or the employees‟ perception of the chances, of getting caught: “The stronger the

perception that theft would be detected, the less the likelihood that the employee would engage

in deviant behavior.”35

Recall that under Cressey‟s model, embezzlers are motivated to commit

illegal acts because they face some financial problem that they cannot share with others because

it would threaten their status. It follows that the greatest threat to the perpetrator would be that he

might be caught in the act of stealing because that would bring his nonshareable problem out into

the open.

In conclusion;

Although fraud controls cannot completely create a fraud proof environment in any

organization, it can be able to mitigate fraud losses incurred by the organization. Apart from

33

Supra n.23 at P.2. 34

Supra n. 12. 35

Supra n.23.

STANLEY N. KINYANJUI THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN AFRICA

13

13 | P a g e

decreasing the amount of losses it can also reduce the duration for which it takes to detect a fraud

scheme. If the control is effective, the less time it will take to detect a fraud. For example if the

government of Kenya had devised a good control mechanism for fraud schemes such as the

goldenberg would not have gone unnoticed for so long.

STANLEY N. KINYANJUI THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN AFRICA

14

14 | P a g e

5.0. CONCLUSION.

One of the most crimes endured by millions worldwide every year and causes millions to be lost

is fraud. Fraud is everywhere these days. Criminals who commit fraud have no personal

reference. They look to victimize the youth, senior citizens, home computers and large

corporations36

.It is often stated that many of these crimes such as insurance and welfare fraud

have no direct victims. In truth the victimless approach is the wrong way to view the situation.

Fraud has a negative effect on everyone.37

As we can see, fraud is mostly done by those in society who are highly learned and mostly the

poor people in society and the illiterate ones are taken advantage of. In the system of capitalism

mostly the poor continue being poor because mostly the rich take advantage of the lack of

knowledge of the illiterate in society. The less privileged in society compromise of the majority

in society but with the lack of knowledge on how to prevent fraud, fraud is really rampant in

society As we live in a society where technology is vastly growing and rampantly spreading and

in most cases fraud is being done high tech using technology. The society in general knows that

fraud is a negative thing but rarely apprehends a fraudster. Petty criminals in society are

apprehended more than fraudsters especially in third world countries. Indeed the society is in the

unfortunate business of hanging petty thieves and canonizing the greater ones.

36

What are the Societal Impacts of Fraud? Retreived via http://www.spamlaws.com/fraud-effects.html on 11th Mar.

2015. 37

Ibid.

STANLEY N. KINYANJUI THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN AFRICA

15

15 | P a g e

REFERENCES.

Joseph T. Wells, Occupational Fraud Abuse, Obsidian Publishing Co., 1997

James F. Stephen, A History of the Criminal Law of England (1883), London, Macmillan

Geoff Smith, Mark Button, Les Johnston, Kwabena Frimpong, Studying Fraud as White

Collar Crime, Palgrave Macmillan, 2011

Davies D, Fraud Watch, ABG Professional Information, 2nd

Ed., 2000.

Arlidge, Anthony, Parry, Jacques, Gatt, Ian, FRAUD, Sweet and Maxwell 1996.

The Black‟s Law Dictionary.

Wells, T. Joseph. Encyclopedia of Fraud, © 2002, Austin, TX: Obsidian Press.

A review of Sutherland‟s White Collar Crime by Robert C. Sorensen, Journal of Criminal

Law and Criminology (1931-1951) Vol. 41, No. 1 (May - Jun., 1950).

Sutherland, Edwin H. (1924) Principles of Criminology, Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Sutherland, Edwin H. (1949) White Collar Crime, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Cressey R. Donald, Other People's Money: A Study in the Social Psychology of

Embezzlement, Free Press, 1953.

Edwin H. Sutherland & Donald R. Cressey, Criminology 51 (10th ed. 1978); Edwin H.

Sutherland et al., Criminology 66 (11th ed. 1992)

W. Steve Albrecht, Keith R. Howe, Marshall B. Romney, Deterring fraud: the internal

auditor's perspective, Institute of Internal Auditors Research Foundation, 1984.

R C Hollinger ; J P Clark, Theft by Employees, LexingtonBooks, 1983.

Joseph T. Wells, “Why Employees Commit Fraud, Journal of Accountancy, AICFA, Feb

2001

Maeda Martha, The Complete Guide to Spotting Accounting Fraud & Cover-ups:

Everything You Need to Know Explained Simply, Atlantic Publishing Group, Inc. 2010.

Merton, R.K., Social Theory and Social Structure, (1967), New York: Free Press.

McCombs Knowledge To Go, Corporate Governance and Corporate Fraud, Nov. 11th

2014.

- And All referenced websites.

STANLEY N. KINYANJUI THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN AFRICA

16

16 | P a g e

APPENDIX.

STANLEY N. KINYANJUI THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN AFRICA

17

17 | P a g e

FIGURE 1:THE FRAUD TREE.

Retrieved from: www.acfe.com

STANLEY N. KINYANJUI THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN AFRICA

18

18 | P a g e

FIGURE 2.INTERNET FRAUD

Retrieved from: www.safaribooksonline.com

STANLEY N. KINYANJUI THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN AFRICA

19

19 | P a g e

Figure.3 CRESSEYS’S FRAUD TRIANGLE

STANLEY N. KINYANJUI THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN AFRICA

20

20 | P a g e

Figure 4. THE FRAUD SCALE