very good presentation here = I was wondering, based on your presented analysis, is one theory better than the other noting they both have very similar properties? if so, share supportive examples where appropriate. Again, good information.

Exploring Various Fraud Theories

The most common Fraud Theories are the fraud triangle and fraud diamond. The two have three primary similarities and one significant difference. However, it is essential to define them before delving into their similarities and differences. The fraud triangle consists of three elements: perceived pressure, rationalization, and opportunity, without which crime cannot occur. In addition, the severity of crime relies on the strength of these elements. However, the fraud diamond theory consists of four components: opportunity, capacity, incentive/pressure, and opportunity. These elements form a diamond figure, hence the name. Therefore, in comparing and contrasting fraud diamond and triangle theories, the core parameters to consider are their aspects of incentive/pressure, rationalization, capacity, and opportunity.

Firstly, both the triangle and diamond fraud theories concur on the role of pressure or incentive in crime. According to Riney (2018), all criminals must have some pressure or compulsion to commit a crime. The perceived pressure is the motivation that leads an individual to engage in criminal or unethical practices. It is essential to acknowledge that perceived pressure may occur to all people irrespective of their levels in society. In addition, there are various causes of the problem. However, both the fraud triangle and diamond theories posit that economic pressures, with most of them involving financial needs and underlying issues such as greed, personal debt, and inability to plan financially (Riney, 2018; Free & Murphy, 2015). Thus, the pressure aspect and its application to both the fraud triangle and diamond proves are among the two theories' fundamental similarities.

The second element applicable to fraud triangle and diamonds theories is "opportunity." The two fraud theories claim that opportunity must exist for fraud to occur (Riney, 2018; Free & Murphy, 2015). Meaning the opportunities that exist in organizations significantly increase the fraud risks. For example, organizations with insufficient internal controls create fraud opportunities through their systems' vulnerabilities. Due to this reason, pre-employment screening is crucial to reducing fraud risks (Ruankaew, 2016). Further, practicing robust internal controls is non-negotiable for business success since they are the most effective measures that eliminate potential fraud. Apart from pre-employment screening adopting occupational fraud, control policies can also reduce fraud risks. According to Dorris (2018), some of the leading occupational fraud schemes in order of their prevalence include corruption (36%), billing (28%), non-cash (17%), and cash on hand (15%). Therefore, it is justifiable to claim that according to the fraud triangle and diamond theories, employees exploit the various control flaws opportunities to perpetuate the vice.

Rationalization is the third shared aspect in the fraud diamond and triangle theories. For example, both theories posit that an attitude or a morally popular rationalization must occur before an individual exhibits fraudulent behavior (Riney, 2018; Free & Murphy, 2015). Admittedly, it is possible that some of the fraud perpetrators do not perceive their actions as unethical. Meaning rationalization allows fraudsters to perceive their actions as acceptable. For example, people who steal from their companies because these firms can afford to exploit the element of rationalization in the fraud triangle and diamond theories.

However, there is only one notable difference between the fraud triangle and diamond theories. For example, while the triangle theory consists of the three elements it shares with the fraud diamond theory, the latter has an additional aspect, called "capacity." According to Free and Murphy (2015), an individual's position in an organization can offer them an opportunity to create and exploit fraud opportunities not available to the rest. It is, therefore, justifiable to claim that the diamond theory is an expansion of the fraud triangle theory.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the fraud triangle and diamond theories share three elements: incentive/pressure, opportunity, and rationalization. The theorists behind these views posit that there must be any of these factors for an individual to commit fraud. However, one difference between the two is the introduction of capacity in the fraud diamond theory. Therefore, it is justifiable to claim that the latter expands the former

Question?

FYI =in your closing paragraph you mentioned: there is only one notable difference between the fraud triangle and diamond theories (of which I totally agree as with your peers). For example, while the triangle theory consists of the three elements it shares with the fraud diamond theory, the latter has an additional aspect, called "capacity." BUT in your opening comments / paragraph, you presented this: the fraud diamond theory consists of four components: opportunity, capacity, incentive/pressure, and opportunity (twice instead of capacity(?)) AND where is your Dorris (2018) reference(??) Very important! Coming full circle good postings just be mindful of what you present and always double check your information before submitting = remember from a doctoral perspective we are writers therefore good habits are hard to break ~~ review before submitting ANYTHING