Fraud Theory Analysis Of Zamroon Nisha Inshanalli †Free Samples

Question: Discuss about the Fraud Theory Analysis Of Zamroon Nisha Inshanalli. Answer: Facts of the Case- It is to be stated that Ms. Inshanalli had plead guilty to a charge of fraud amounting to more than $5000. She was charged for breach of the provision stated in section 380(1) and 733.(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. Ms Inshanalli had defrauded the victim WSC Corporation Coppinwood Golf Club. Ms. Inshanalli had been employed as a book keeper to the victim for a time period starting from April 2014 to January 2016. During her employment period she had written 134 cheques fraudulently to herself. All the cheques were made to Zamroon Nisha Inshanalli and were deposited into three bank accounts all in the name of Zamroon Nisha Inshanalli. Further it is to be stated that out of the 134 cheques she had forged the signature of Gerard Waslens on 125 cheques. Zamroon Nisha Inshanalli is of 62 years of age and is married to RaffiqInshanalli with one son who is 34 years old and resides with them. Apparently her husband and son had been aware of her convictions for fraudulent activities of the past. The defendant in this case, Ms. Inshanalli had committed a total fraud of $463,824.42. However, the defendant has made a restitution of $54,000 dollars leaving $409,824.42 outstanding. Fraud Theory Analysis It is to be stated that there are a number of theories that can be applied to analyze the conduct of fraudsters and gain insight about the reason for commitment of the fraud. Some of the theories that can be applied to the case include: The Fraud Triangle theory- According to this theory it can be stated that there are three factors which can drive a trustworthy person to committing frauds. These factors are: Perceived Pressure- It can be stated that perceived pressure provides the motivation for committing fraud to most fraudsters. It can be said that a trustworthy person commits fraud when he encounters the financial problems that cannot be solved legitimately. He therefore resorts to unethical and illegal standards for solving the problem. Perceived opportunity- It can be stated that this factor generally provides insight about how the fraud takes place. According to this factor a trustworthy person also commits fraud when he perceives an opportunity to take advantage of the trust of the victim and abuse his trusted position. Rationalization- According to this factor it can be stated that most of the fraudsters are not criminal minded and seasoned criminals and there needs to be a personal justification of the fraudsters for committing the fraud. However this theory cannot be applied to analyze the reason for committing fraud in case of predatory fraudsters. After applying the principles of this theory to the facts of this case it can be stated that this theory cannot assess Ms. Inshanallis reason for committing fraud as she has been involved in other fraudulent activities in the past. She has an extensive history of committing frauds and criminal activities. She was first convicted on May 13 2004 in New Market where she had committed theft of $750,000. She had exhibited similar behavior, when she had stolen from her employer Sherwood Innovations a sum of $141, 000 over a period of two years from 2010 to 2012. She plead guilty to the charges and she was sentenced to a eighteen month conditional sentence following a two year probation period. Based on this behavior it can be stated that she exhibits behavior of a predatory fraudster. The Fraud Scale This theory was introduced in the year 1984 and was said to substitute the fraud triangle theory. This theory takes in to consideration the integrity along with the other factors of the fraud triangle. Integrity of a person can be assessed by assessing a persons commitment to ethics. The fraud scale theory can be predictive. It can be stated that a person with low pressure, low opportunity and low high integrity is less likely to commit fraud than a person with high a person with high pressure, high opportunity and low integrity. In this case the fraud scale does not completely apply as the defendant had exhibited similar behavior in the past on numerous occasions. However the element of integrity can be applied. She supposedly has low integrity. Therefore low integrity combined with high opportunity makes her more likely to commit fraud. Rational Choice Theory According to this theory there are three primary conditions of fraud: The fraudster often considers himself as a separate individual Individuals work to maximize their goals Individuals work in their self interest. The main principle of the Rational Choice Theory states that the crme is chosen based on the benefit of such crime. In this case Ms. Inshanalli had had committed fraud in order to maximize her financial status and well-being. It can be stated that she evaluated the benefits of the crime to be more than the cost of it as she was lightly punished on the previous occasions. Conclusion Thus in conclusion it can be mentioned that all of the three theories have provided insights into the factors responsible for committing frauds by fraudsters. In the case R vs Paterson, 2013 the court analyzed that the primary motive of the defendant behind committing fraud was his failing business. It can be stated that the victim had suffered a huge financial loss and this was the driving factor which led to the commitment of fraud. By applying the fraud theory to this case it can be stated that the defendant was under a lot of pressure and had the opportunity to take advantage of his position. Primarily because of this reason he had taken the decision to deviate from ethical and legal standards and commit fraud. However, in case of Ms. Inshanalli, there was no pressure on her to and she did not commit the fraud in order to provide relief to her situation. By applying the Rational choice theory it can be stated that she committed the frauds as it seemed to her that the benefits of the crime committed outweighed the cost of the same. She had indulged in the crime in order to sustain her lavish lifestyle. References: v. Inshanalli, 2017 ONCJ 234v. Paterson, 2013 BCPC 5 Cornish, D. B., Clarke, R. V. (Eds.). (2014).The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending. Transaction Publishers. Clarke, R. V. G., Felson, M. (Eds.). (1993).Routine activity and rational choice(Vol. 5). Transaction Publishers. Dorminey, J., Fleming, A. S., Kranacher, M. J., Riley Jr, R. A. (2012). The evolution of fraud theory.Issues in Accounting Education,27(2), 555-579. Ruankaew, T. (2016). Beyond the fraud diamond.International Journal of Business Management and Economic Research,7(1), 474-476. Kassem, R., Higson, A. (2012). The new fraud triangle model.Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences,3(3), 191.