So the second side of the fraud triangle is the ability, or chance, to commit fraud. The active fraudster will take affirmative steps to commit a fraud while the passive fraudster will have an opportunity fall into his lap and take advantage of it.
The active fraudster, for lack of a better comparison, is the "Bernie Madoff" type of person who seeks out the ability to deceive people to take the money. The passive fraudster, once again for the lack of a better comparison, is the person who suddenly finds an opportunity in front of him; the sole accountant for a small company that finds he can keep two sets of books with no one noticing.
Which is worse?
All fraudsters, to some extent, fail the moral requirements of being a good person. We do not want to work with people who will take advantage of us, whether this comes about from someone who is always on the take or someone who is in the right place at the right time for a fraud to occur. It might be easier to justify the actions of someone who acted "out of character" and took advantage of a situation vs. someone like Madoff who went around seeking victims. But, here is the real question: does it make life any easier for the victims?
As we have discussed and seen many times in this blog (and in real-life situations), fraud is not a victimless crime. Money and/or assets are being taken; the only difference between a fraudster and a burglar is that the threat of physical violence is not being used. But - with both the active and passive fraudster, there is a breach of trust occurring.
The active fraudster, for lack of a better comparison, is the "Bernie Madoff" type of person who seeks out the ability to deceive people to take the money. The passive fraudster, once again for the lack of a better comparison, is the person who suddenly finds an opportunity in front of him; the sole accountant for a small company that finds he can keep two sets of books with no one noticing.
Which is worse?
All fraudsters, to some extent, fail the moral requirements of being a good person. We do not want to work with people who will take advantage of us, whether this comes about from someone who is always on the take or someone who is in the right place at the right time for a fraud to occur. It might be easier to justify the actions of someone who acted "out of character" and took advantage of a situation vs. someone like Madoff who went around seeking victims. But, here is the real question: does it make life any easier for the victims?
As we have discussed and seen many times in this blog (and in real-life situations), fraud is not a victimless crime. Money and/or assets are being taken; the only difference between a fraudster and a burglar is that the threat of physical violence is not being used. But - with both the active and passive fraudster, there is a breach of trust occurring.
NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS BLOG IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE NOR
IS IT INTENDED TO BE LEGAL ADVICE. IF
THE READER HAS ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER TO AN ATTORNEY.
----------à>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gene
tausk
No comments:
Post a Comment