EXPLAINING MILAMBO’s PERSUASIONS AGAINST FRAUD THEORY!!

Named after the developer Francis Milambo, the theory was advanced in 2017 to explain the major persuasions that play centre stage in preventing people from engaging in fraud. People are generally persuaded in their actions by either morals, the law or religion. Milambo argued that people will avoid engaging in fraud if they identified with one or two or all of the Moral, Legal or Religious persuasions against fraud. In advancing his case, Milambo argued that for people to avoid engaging in fraud, their conviction must be line with one of the following three persuasions; ?

MORAL PERSUASSION

This persuasion borders on speaking to the moral conscience of an individual in an effort to deter fraud. It is about one knowing or being pointed to the fact that fraud is immoral. This can be done by highlighting the fact that fraud robs resources that can be used for the poor, the sick and those with disabilities. Fraud orchestrated by a few individuals has brought some companies into bankruptcy and left many innocent persons unemployed. It is about talking to someone’s moral conscience. To the extent that someone agrees that fraud is immoral and their conviction is strong about it, then they are unlikely to engage in fraud if they value morality. This also speaks in line to the social control theory of crime. Given that someone feels that fraud is immoral, they will tend to ask themselves what will my family or friends or associates think if they find out I engaged myself into an immoral act of fraud?

LEGAL PERSUASSION

Legal persuasion against fraud acknowledges the role that knowledge of the law plays in preventing fraud. People should be made aware what actions amount to fraud and alerted to the fact that the law criminalizes fraud. It should be noted that knowledge of the law is an effective tool for deterring people from committing fraud. People that identify themselves with the legal persuasion against fraud perspective will avoid engaging in fraud to the extent that they feel that committing fraud will get them fired, blacklisted by their professional body or imprisoned. ?The law in this instance is the standard that one uses to classify what is right and what is wrong. If the law criminalizes fraud (as is the case), then a person that uses the law as a standard of right or wrong will most likely be deterred from committing fraud.

RELIGIOUS PERSUASSION

One cannot deny the role that religion plays in preventing people from engaging in fraudulent activities. This persuasions points to speaking to someone’s religious beliefs in an effort to deter fraud. We would agree that fraud is talked against in almost all religions and hence a person that has a huge religious conviction may avoid engaging in fraud in an effort to avoid disobeying a greater being. As an example verses in the Bible such as, “thou shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15) may prevent a Christian from committing fraud while verses in the Quran such as, “[As for] the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they earned [i.e. committed] as a deterrent [punishment] from Allah. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.” [Quran 5:38] may discourage someone of Muslim belief from engaging in fraud.

These three persuasions speak highly to the rationalization leg of the fraud triangle. At the stage that an individual is contemplating engaging in fraud, the three persuasions play a part and depending on the strength of the individual to identify themselves with these three persuasions against fraud, they may or may not engage in fraud.

For one to commit fraud, their persuasion to commit fraud must be more than their identification to one or two or all the three persuasions explained above. This therefore has an implication for those that draft or develop content for a fraud awareness programme. It is important that when developing a fraud awareness training programme for employees, the developers incorporate or factor in the role that the three persuasions play in discouraging fraudulent behaviour. Of the three persuasions, what may deter one employee from engaging in fraud may be different from that which may deter another employee from engaging in fraud. One employ may avoid committing fraud because of their religious values while an employee that is not religious may not be persuaded against committing fraud due to religious reasons but rather legal reasons or moral reasons. What is important is to ensure that all the three persuasions against fraud explained above are incorporated in the fraud awareness program so as to touch the conscience of all and leave no on behind.

CONCLUSION

Combating fraud is not an easy task especially in a world of scarce resources. To prevent the occurrence of fraud, a fraud awareness program must strive to speak to the conscience of people or employees taking into consideration the persuasion against fraud perspective that is most relevant to them. Milambo’s Persuasion Against Fraud Theory has the potential to increase the efficiency in combating fraud and reduce its occurrence significantly.

?

?Author

Francis Milambo (FZICA, BBAA, FCI, CISA, CFE, *MSc Risk, Crisis and Disaster Management)

?

Disclaimer

The views in this article are solely those of the author. They do not in any way represent the views of any sector or class or fraternity or organisation that the author may be associated with. Readers are therefore encouraged to treat the sentiments in the above article as such.???????

?

?