Storytelling of bureaucratic white-collar crimes in Indonesia: is it a matter of reciprocal norm?
| Pages | 573-586 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-07-2019-0087 |
| Published date | 28 January 2020 |
| Date | 28 January 2020 |
| Author | Ach Maulidi |
| Subject Matter | Financial risk/company failure,Accounting & Finance |
Storytelling of bureaucratic white-
collar crimes in Indonesia: is it
a matter of reciprocal norm?
Ach Maulidi
Business School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK and
Bina Nusantara University, Jakarta, Indonesia
Abstract
Purpose –The purposeof this paper is to contribute to the existing fraudstudies and theory (fraud triangle)
from bureaucratic crime perspectives. Importantly, this paper answers calls on research, exploring the
routines of interaction both micro- and social psychological constructs in studying fraudulent behaviours.
These aspectsare relatively new, which have a little attention from auditing and fraud literature.
Design/methodology/approach –Experienced fraud perpetrators were used for this study. A semi-
structuredinterview techniquewas used, allowing to uncover richdescriptive data on the personalexperiences
of participants.It allowed them to telland illustrate why and how they get involvedin fraudulent activities.
Findings –Many explanations, from a wide variety of perspectives, have been advanced to explain why
people commit fraud in bureaucracy.Using reciprocity and exchange theory as a basis, it was found strong
evidence forexpanding fraud triangle theory (Cressey,1953) as a predictor of individual’s intentionto commit
white-collar crimes. Evidence of these results provides a new challenge to other accounts of why systemic
fraud would or would not occur. In this point, it highlights the concepts of social exchangeand the norm of
reciprocity serve as a useful beginningfor explaining the factors that cause someone to commit occupational
fraud. Generally,a number of distinct empirical and theoreticalcontributions arise from the current study.
Originality/value –This paper contributes to the enrichment of fraud theory and literature, from
psychological perspectives.With regard to the reciprocity between peers within and outside organisation, it
offers theoretical frameworksabout the reasons for the decisions to commit white-collarcrimes. As such, it
advancesfraud and auditing studies.
Keywords Reciprocity, Preventive measures, Bureaucratic crimes, Conspiracy beliefs and acts,
Fraud triggers
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Bureaucratic white-collarcrime is labelled as organisational crime committed by individual
(s), working in a bureaucracy.Many prior studies link bureaucratic offences, for the sake of
private advantages, to “corrupt acts”(Bali, 2018;Dimakou, 2015;Gans-morse et al.,2018;
L
opez-valcárcel et al., 2017), “bribery”(Ahlin and Bose, 2007;Hanousek and Kochanova,
2016;Ryvkin and Serra, 2012;Soans and Abe, 2016), “kickback”(Dixit, 2012), “public
procurement”(Baldi et al., 2016;Neu et al., 2015;Sargiacomo et al., 2015), “embezzlement”
(Blackburn and Forgues-Puccio, 2010) and “licensing”(Danchev et al., 2010;Kosnik, 2006).
These frauds are different in nature and are likely to have different antecedents and
consequences. Within this issue, Anand et al. (2015) encourage a debate to extend existing
theories or create new theoriesthat capture the vast array of how fraud is perpetrated.
The reasoning behind a worker’s decision to commit workplacefraud actually has been
identified by prior studies, for example due to the failure of internal control (Bali, 2018;
Zafarullah and Siddiquee, 2001), organisation culture (Kyarimpa and Garcia-Zamor, 2010),
White-collar
crimes
573
Journalof Financial Crime
Vol.27 No. 2, 2020
pp. 573-586
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1359-0790
DOI 10.1108/JFC-07-2019-0087
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