Many fraudsters do not view themselves as criminals

Many fraudsters do not view themselves as criminals. Instead, they construct narratives that make their actions seem justified, temporary or even fair. Courtesy of Freepik

#opinion

According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, fraud and corruption account for around 5% of global gross domestic product—$2.6 trillion to $3.6 trillion — each year.

This highlights how widespread and serious fraud is, involving individuals across many levels of society.

To prevent fraud, it is important to understand what motivates people to commit it in the first place.

One often overlooked element is rationalisation—the internal process through which people justify dishonest behaviour to themselves and reframe it as acceptable, necessary or harmless.

Many fraudsters do not view themselves as criminals. Instead, they construct narratives that make their actions seem justified, temporary or even fair.

One common belief is that no one is really hurt.

Offenders may assume that losses are absorbed by corporations, governments or insurance companies rather than individuals.

Because the victims are not visible, the harm can feel abstract, making the behaviour easier to justify.

This way of thinking creates a disconnect between actions and consequences. For instance, procurement officers who manipulate tender processes might tell themselves that government funds are abundant anyway.

In doing so, they overlook the broader consequences, such as reduced public trust, wasted resources and unfair advantages over honest competitors.

When the impact feels indirect, personal responsibility tends to weaken.

Over time, they convince themselves that they deserve more.

Fraud is then reframed not as theft, but as compensation or entitlement.

Another common rationalisation is borrowing money. Fraudsters tell themselves that they are only taking funds temporarily and will repay them later.

In practice, this repayment rarely happens.

Research from the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners shows that fraud often begins with small, seemingly insignificant actions.

A minor adjustment or shortcut may not seem serious at first, but repeated over time can gradually weaken ethical boundaries.

Behaviour that once seemed wrong can start to feel normal, which is one of the most dangerous aspects of fraud.

As these attitudes spread, ethical standards weaken, and fraud becomes more normalised.

Fraudsters may also compare themselves to worse offenders, thinking, “at least I’m not as bad as others”, allowing them to minimise their actions and avoid confronting the fact that fraud remains wrong regardless of scale.

Another justification is blaming the system itself.

If individuals believe the system is already corrupt or unfair, they may see their own fraudulent actions as insignificant or even justified.

This removes a sense of personal responsibility and makes wrongdoing feel inevitable rather than a choice.

Criminologists believe that individuals also use their past good behaviour to excuse occasional misconduct. They may think that because they have contributed positively in other areas, a small exception is acceptable.

This can lower personal standards and make it easier to justify unethical decisions, such as fraud, especially when no one is watching.

Fraudsters often use softer or more technical terms, such as adjustments, facilitation, or handling fees, to describe corrupt practices. This type of wording makes it sound routine, administrative or merely a social issue rather than a criminal act.

Workplace culture can reinforce these behaviours. In some organisations, unofficial rules and expectations affect how employees behave.

When unethical behaviour is ignored, tolerated, or even rewarded, fraud can become embedded in the organisation’s culture.

In organisational settings, a fair system of rewards and punishments is essential. The absence of consequences strengthens rationalisation.

When individuals observe others committing fraud without being caught or punished, they may assume the risk is low, leading to a false sense of security and increasing the likelihood of repeat misconduct.

Individuals rarely become fraudsters in a single decision. Rather, it is a step-by-step process shaped by small choices, repeated justifications, and slowly weakening ethical boundaries.

Strong laws and enforcement are not sufficient on their own. Prevention also requires attention to ethics, organisational culture and governance systems that clearly define and reinforce integrity.

Ultimately, fraud is not just a legal issue but also a psychological one. Rationalisation allows individuals to maintain a positive self-image while engaging in dishonest behaviour.

If these thought patterns are not challenged early, even strong systems of control may not be enough to prevent wrongdoing.

The writer is a professor and director at the Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice, HELP University. First published in New Straits Times

-Khmer Times-