Deconstructing the origins of Cressey’s Fraud Triangle
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-10-2020-0204 |
| Published date | 02 June 2021 |
| Date | 02 June 2021 |
| Pages | 722-731 |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance,Financial risk/company failure,Financial crime |
| Author | Peter Tickner,Mark Button |
Deconstructing the origins of
Cressey’s Fraud Triangle
Peter Tickner and Mark Button
Faculty of Humanities and Social Science, University of Portsmouth, Reading,UK
Abstract
Purpose –Cressey’s Fraud Trianglehas been referenced in 8,584 studies and academic papers[1] and is a
stalwart of training courses for accounting and audit practitioners and fraud investigators. The Fraud
Triangle has endured for threedecades in the academic and practitioner worlds. This study aimsto explore
the origins of Cressey’sFraud Triangle and challenge its practical value to a fraud investigator.
Design/methodology/approach –This study has developed from analysis of a targeted literature
review carriedout as part of a wider study into occupational fraud and corruption.
Findings –Cressey’s name is intrinsically linked to the Fraud Triangle, although he never used the
expression during his lifetime. Two of the three motivational factors identified by Cressey (1953) were
developed from the earlier work of SvendRiemer (1941), who it is suggested should have equal billing with
Donald Cresseyfor the concepts that led to the creation of the Fraud Triangle.
Practical implications –The paper illustrates the limitations of Cressey’s Fraud Triangle for
practitioners.
Originality/value –Many academics and researchers have either misunderstood Cressey’s role in the
development of the Fraud Triangle or been unaware of its true origins. Although the pioneering work of
Riemer is referencedin a 2014 study on the Fraud Triangle by Alexander Schuchter and MichaelLevi, to the
best of the authors’knowledge,this paper is the first to identify the influence of Riemer on Cressey’s thinking
and the developmentof the Fraud Triangle.
Keywords Criminology, White collar crime, Fraud, Occupational fraud, Fraud Triangle, Cressey,
Embezzlement, Sutherland
Paper type General review
Introduction
The Fraud Triangle concept links three conditions that need to be present for an individual
to be motivated to commit a fraud–a perceived pressure, a perceived opportunity to commit
the fraud and the ability to rationalise the fraudulent behaviourto make it acceptable. This
model, promulgated by the Associationof Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) and others, is
a logical interpretation of Cressey’s research and of relevance to social science and the
discipline of criminologybut in the authors’view has limited relevance to practitioners.
Several authors have also tried to build on the foundations of the Fraud Triangle. The
fraud diamond of Wolfe and Hermanson (2004), the fraud M.I.C.E. (money, ideology,
coercion and ego) Kranacher et al. (2010), the fraud squareof Cieslewicz (2010,2011) adding
a fourth side to the Fraud Triangle to represent societalinfluences, the fraud balance theory
of Albrecht et al. (1982) and Schuchter and Levi’s replacement of rationalisation with the
concept of the “inner voice”(Schuchterand Levi, 2015), to name some.
Background
It is unusual to attend a fraud investigator training course and not to at some point come
across Cressey’s Fraud Triangle. Inits simplest form, the triangle can be described in three
JFC
28,3
722
Journalof Financial Crime
Vol.28 No. 3, 2021
pp. 722-731
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1359-0790
DOI 10.1108/JFC-10-2020-0204
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1359-0790.htm
To continue reading
Request your trial