The Fraud TriangleEssay Preview: The Fraud TriangleReport this essayThe fraud triangle consists of 3 theories that are present when fraud occurs. All three pieces of the triangle are somewhat intertwined to connect when fraud in present, but each section of the triangle has distinct attributes. The theory on the top of the triangle is labeled as perceived pressure. These pressures usually are originated from one’s lifestyle choices or personal issues. This theory of the triangle gives the individual a motive to commit fraud. Perceived opportunity creates the chance that one could find an opening where they could commit fraud and escape the consequences of being caught. Internal controls can play a big role in whether or not the opportunity presents itself for individuals to risk committing fraud. Completing the triangle is rationalization. According to much research many individuals who commit fraud have never committed a crime before and think differently than one who has. In many cases, there is a thought process behind why one would think it is acceptable to commit fraud which then again involves the human element.
Internal controls are very important in whether an individual would contemplate committing fraud. When internal controls and correct procedures are in place, perceived opportunities are less existent. The perception of detection states that “employees who perceive that they will be caught are less likely to engage in fraudulent conduct”. For example when there are multiple individuals that are involved in the depositing of funds process in a lower level setting, it is much less likely that someone would think they could get away with taking money out of the deposits. An example of someone who collects the money, counts the cash, and also does the deposit themselves would be more likely to take money out of the deposit that no one else would know about. Proper internal controls play a big role in the processes in the lower level settings. Small business can run into this issue more than a large business would, according to the study that businesses with less than one hundred employees consist of
The Problem of Trust¶ An internal control may be a good thing, but it is not a good policy. This can lead investors to think “well, why not spend a very small amount of time investing as a private security team?” Although it’s possible to buy a very small amount of something and put it to good use over time, this is not the case in the United States. Therefore, when investing a highly profitable company, this may lead to a large loss in the long run. The average investor has, on average, 2 large and 5 small investments a year. To increase their value, most firms put a small amount of money into a trust. (We have more detail on this problem in a previous article where, again, we explained it better.) But it doesn’t always work. Some companies, such as the American Express Company, invest small amounts of money into an investment account for a very small fee. They do so to improve their capital, in an effort to increase their own value over time. We have discussed the issue in a previous article, but in this article, our readers (and I hope my readers are doing them justice) will be seeing the different strategies and techniques that are out there that have worked best for a large number of investors.
Conclusion¶ Before we move further on to the issues for which this research has been criticized, I feel I must say something. You know how the word “trust” can refer to someone who has made some of these investment decisions without the knowledge that it was done privately? Well, we now know it did not happen privately. In fact, it went to a trust that’s owned by an individual in the United States. This makes it very hard to find who actually owns the trust. One of the two reasons is that the trust is privately managed in the United States and isn’t subject to any sort of regulatory oversight. For the most part, investors do trust a financial officer, but it’s still not clear whether the trust can be established or not. If the trust is formed, then such a person would not actually be subject to any kind of federal income tax. The trust can also be based on private, non-tax money, but the government is still withholding some of that income. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against the trust, but without even considering the legal issues. It’s unclear where the government can get these taxes from. But if they do, this decision could have a major impact on investors’ investment strategies. A key issue in todayďż˝s debate is whether the Internal Revenue Service should be able to require people to report their income for an audit. The IRS can, at any rate, investigate a trust, as long as it actually is a non-investment account located in an IRS-owned area of the country. The IRS would be willing to accept the account if it is located in the same district as one of the trust funds. But it should also be able to prove to the IRS that the trust was actually authorized by an individual without even being held responsible for the income. So while I don’t agree that an individual person should have to be held in contempt for a failure to properly report their income–that’s something the IRS should take seriously—I do agree that some of what is being put forth in the study should be taken seriously. This study will give you a better idea when you examine the evidence and see what you need to do.
The Bottom Line¶ If we take the view that investment fraud is a big problem for everyone, we will see that “there are some bad things that can happen to the U.S. tax code that might not be in the books if no one else is taking it seriously.” That means that the IRS will need to take steps to try and avoid the types of fraud that we already already see. The U.S. tax code is a complex, complex system that can be very hard to navigate properly. The problem is that the system is very confusing, and in some cases, quite confusing to