Fraud – and those who commit it

From Miss Monica’s Certified Fraud Examiner training textbook, emphasis added.

McCaghy says profit pressure is “the single most compelling factor behind deviance by industry, whether it be price fixing, the destruction of competition or the misrepresentation of a product,” such as making a shoddy product that will wear out and need to be replaced. Clinard and Yeager say certain industries, such as the drug and chemical businesses, have such severe competition and strong profit drives due to demands for continual development of new products that they may feel pressured to falsify test data, market new products before their full effects are known, or engage in unethical sales techniques that can have disastrous effects on human beings and the environment.
In their study of corporate criminality, Clinard and Yeager found that large corporations were far more likely to commit violations than small corporations. Large corporations also bear a disproportionate share of sanctions for serious or moderate violation.

Check this out – the poor and well-educated whites tend to view the police negatively. 

Bahram Haghighi and Jon Sorensen cite numerous studies showing that: (1) people with low incomes, and (2) whites with advanced schooling view police departments negatively.  These two types of people go against the general grain in their disapproval of police. It’s intriguing, then, to note that the people most likely to commit fraud in the workplace are white men with executive status and advanced college degrees.   This suggests that the willingness to commit fraud-like the willingness to hold up a Quicky Picky-has a great deal to do with the perpetrator’s attitude toward the law. Simply put, those with the most negative attitudes about law enforcement are more likely to commit crimes. (This may seem axiomatic, but consider how useful this knowledge could be in evaluating and distinguishing among several suspects.)