Fraud Theory Analysis: A Case Study of R v. Inshanalli

This case analysis explores the fraud theories applied to the case of R v. Inshanalli, who was charged with committing fraud under section 380(1) and 733.(1) of the Criminal code. The analysis includes Fraud Triangle theory, The Fraud Scale, and Rational Choice Theory.

Running Head: CASE ANALYSIS
CASE ANALYSIS
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note

1CASE ANALYSIS
Table of Contents
Case Facts........................................................................................................................................2
Fraud theory analysis.......................................................................................................................2
Fraud Triangle theory..................................................................................................................3
The Fraud Scale...........................................................................................................................4
Rational Choice Theory...............................................................................................................4
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................5
Bibliography:...................................................................................................................................6

2CASE ANALYSIS
Case Facts
It can be noted that Ms. Inshanalli was charged of committing fraud under section 380(1)
and 733.(1) of the Criminal code.She had pleaded guilty to the charge of committing fraud which
amounted to more than $5000. It is to be stated that Ms. Inshanalli had been working in WSC
Corporation Coppinwood Golf Club as a book keeper for a period of almost two years from
April 2014 to January 2016. During the course of her employment Ms. Inshanalli had
fraudulently written 134 cheques to herself. It is to be stated that all the cheques had been
deposited into different bank accounts of Zamroon Nisha Inshanalli and were written to her
name. Further 125 of the cheques written by her contained Gerard Waslens’ Signature, which
she had forged.
Zamroon Nisha Inshanalli is the wife of RaffiqInshanalli. They have a son who resides
with them and is 34 years of age. Zamroon Niha Inshanalli is 62 years old. It was apparent that
the son and husband of Ms. Inshanalli were aware of her fraudulent activities and her convictions
in the past for the same reasons.
It can be stated, in this case that the defendant had committed fraud amounting to
$463,824.42. The defendant in this case, Ms Inshanalli however had made a restitution of
$54,000. $409,824.42 were left as outstanding dues.
Fraud theory analysis
Numerous fraud theories can be used and applied in this case for analyzing the
misconduct of the fraudsters and discuss the main reasons for committing fraud by fraudsters

3CASE ANALYSIS
(Morales, Gendron & Guénin-Paracini, 2014). The fraud theories that will be applied in this case
are:
Fraud Triangle theory
This theory states that three different factors can transform a person who is trustworthy to a
fraudster. The aforementioned factors are:
 Perceived Pressure – The motivation to commit fraud is provided to the fraudsters by
the perceived pressure (Schuchter & Levi, 2015). At times trustworthy people resort to
committing fraud as a result of facing acute financial problems which cannot be solved
lawfully. As a result of facing such financial problems trustworthy people resort to illegal
and unethical standards.
 Perceived opportunity- It is to be mentioned that a person, who is trustworthy commits
a fraudulent activity when he finds an opportunity to take advantage of the victim’s trust
(Free, 2015). This factor provides explanation of how the fraud takes place.
 Rationalization- It is to be noted that most fraudsters are not criminals and therefore they
can personally justify the reasons for committing frauds.
However, the principle of rationalization is not to be applied to assess the reason of
committing fraud by predatory fraudsters.
The factors of the fraud triangle theory cannot be implemented in this chosen case as it has
been noted that Ms Inshanalli had been convicted of fraudulent activities in the past on two
occasions. Her first conviction was on May 13 2004 for a theft of $750,000. She had again
committed theft of $141,000 over a time period of two years from 2010 to 2012 from her
employer, Sherwood Innovations. On the second occasion she had pleaded guilty and had to

4CASE ANALYSIS
serve an eighteen month conditional sentence followed by a probation period of two years.
Therefore after analyzing the aforementioned facts it is to be said that her behavior resembles
that of predatory fraudster.
The Fraud Scale
It can be said that this theory came into being in the 1984 and it substituted the theory of
fraud triangle. The Fraud Scale theory considers the factor integrity in addition to the al other
factors of the theory of Fraud Triangle (Schuchter & Levi, 2015). The commitment of a person to
ethics is the factor that assesses the integrity of the person. Therefore it can be stated that a
person acting under low pressure, with low opportunity and high integrity is less expected to
commit fraud than some who has low integrity, high opportunity and under high pressure.
In this chosen case study it can be stated that the principles of fraud scale theory cannot
be completely applied as the defendant, Ms Inshanalli had exhibited similar conduct on
numerous occasions in the past. However, the factor integrity can be assessed in this given
scenario. She had exhibited low integrity and was presented with high opportunity. The
combination of these two factors increased her chances of committing fraud
Rational Choice Theory
It is to be stated that this theory has three main and main conditions of fraud. They are:
 Individuals aim and act to fulfill their self interest.
 Individuals aim to maximize their personal goals
 The fraudster often places his own interests above the interest of any other party.
The rational theory suggests that offenders commit a crime after evaluating the benefits to be
acquired by the crime and consequences of committing the same (Anand, Dacin & Murphy,

5CASE ANALYSIS
2015). In the aforementioned case it can be stated that the defendant had committed fraud on
numerous occasions as she had perceived that it was easy to get away with it. She had committed
the frauds to improve her well being and financial status which seemed to be of greater
importance than the consequence of it.
Conclusion
Thus to conclude it is be stated that all the theories discussed above have been able to
analyze the factors that drive individuals to commit fraud.
It is to be stated that in the R vs Paterson, 2013, case it was analyzed by the court that the
defendant’s main motive to commit fraud was to recover from the financial crisis faced by him
due to his failing business. Thus by applying the theory of fraud triangle it is to be said that the
defendant had been under a lot of pressure and thus seized the opportunity to take advantage of
his position. It is mainly due to this reason that he committed the fraud.
In this case the defendant was not under any pressure and she committed fraud primarily
because she wanted to improve her financial status and her well being. By the application of the
Rationalization theory it is to be said that she had committed the crimes as she had assessed that
the consequences of the crimes likely to be faced by her were outweighed by the benefit of the
crime.

6CASE ANALYSIS
Bibliography:
Anand, V., Dacin, M. T., & Murphy, P. R. (2015). The continued need for diversity in fraud
research. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(4), 751-755.
Free, C. (2015). Looking through the fraud triangle: A review and call for new directions. Meditari
Accountancy Research, 23(2), 175-196.
Morales, J., Gendron, Y., & Guénin-Paracini, H. (2014). The construction of the risky individual and
vigilant organization: A genealogy of the fraud triangle. Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 39(3), 170-194.
R. v. Inshanalli, 2017 ONCJ 234
R. v. Paterson, 2013 BCPC 5
Schuchter, A., & Levi, M. (2015, September). Beyond the fraud triangle: Swiss and Austrian elite
fraudsters. In Accounting Forum (Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 176-187). Elsevier.
Schuchter, A., & Levi, M. (2015, September). Beyond the fraud triangle: Swiss and Austrian elite
fraudsters. In Accounting Forum (Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 176-187). Elsevier.
Schuchter, A., & Levi, M. (2016). The fraud triangle revisited. Security Journal, 29(2), 107-121.