Do Fraudsters have ethics?
I saw this article & started thinking whether fraudsters have any ethics?
Fraud Prevention-Line or support function
Fraud prevention is often treated as a cost centre rather than a strategic business unit.what can anti fraud professionals do to change the perception.i truly believe that if collections can be treated as a line function then Fraud prevention cell too should be treated as a line function rather then a support function.I feel that this unit is always treated as a supprt unit due to which it doesn't get it's dues.I feel that if goal sheet for the unit is revised to show more of tangible results then it may help in changing the perception.At the same time repositioning is required to move potential savings to actual savings.one step could be to conduct fraud checks at the end of all process so that true savings can be shown.for eg post credit sampling would highlight cases with ctaual savings as all these are approved cases.would like to hear other thoughs about this
Comments
I dont think real frauders have a lot of ethics
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24864554-12335,00.html
>
As for Madoff, my question is why don't they seize his assets until the matter is settled. Where could he have hidden that volume of assets?
Where were the auditors in this situation? Yes I agree politics does come into play. Sometimes auditors don't trust their instincts and pass it by. Some of those instances may be fraud and some just sloppy accounting. Unfortunately, sloppy accounting can easily turn into fraud with the right person or opportunity.
Most fraudsters are aware they are not doing the right thing however the feeling in them is that until I am caught I am clean
I remember finding some fraudulent activities, and was not allowed to further pursue these matters because the firm closed up shop. However, the individuals that were defrauding investors most likely joined another firm. As an examiner it was very frustrating, and I imagine those people charged with auditing Madoff went through a similar process.
I have also seen where auditors just used their audit checklist and never audited matters fully. However, for the most part every examiner I have met takes his/her job seriously. In every profession there will always be those that come to work for just a paycheck.
Many individuals look at a situation in one way; decide that it is acceptable based on that viewpoint and look no further. If they took a bit more time and looked at it from other angles they might see ethical issues with their actions. I do not know how much this is the result of laziness; of lack of knowledge or of the knowledge that if they do not look too closely they can overlook actions that are really unacceptable.
I think a lack of thought leads to unethical acts in many instances. This is not true in egregious situations, such as Madoff, but in the daily ones I have seen it quite a bit.
I have a natural tendency to look at situations from many angles but have noticed that many of my colleagues see only one viewpoint and they have difficulty seeing another one even when it is spelled out in minute detail.
I have encountered individuals who, when it is pointed out, will readily change their actions because they never intended an unethical act while others will argue and create excuses.
Someone deliberately deciding to commit fraud may believe they have ethics (as in the Russian example above) and I do see varying levels of issues; some will steal but not kill, others will do anything to have their way. I see this more as morals - - some embrace the value of a human life; others do not.
Mr.Madoff may have rationalised his acts by some other logic like all the people whom he cheated can afford to loose this much money etc. & he is not cheating common man
Barbara is right about ethics, I rememebr conducting a trg session for frontline sales team wherein we showed them slides about"think whether you would be doing this thing if others are watching", whether you would be able to tell your mother about this act of yours" etc.idea was to make them aware that even when nobody is looking they should not do anything which is not ethical
My doubt is can we say that ignorance is bliss?can someone be left unpunished if he claims ignorance?i have seen many a ppl taking the stand that they were not aware that this is wrong .my point is then those ppl are not competent to perform their duties.for example if a credit manager ignores discrepencies in certain figures on financial documents ,isn't he a party to fraud.can he/she claim that they were not aware about the importance of such a mismatch?.if they claim this then may be as a organization they can't be called fraudsters but then those guys are not competent for the job of credit manager.
i know this discussion is going in another direction as our main point was whether fraudsters have ethics but your reply has made me think about above too.
would love to hear other thoughts on above.