Testing the fraud triangle: a systematic review
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to examine the existing literature on the fraud triangle. The fraud triangle framework, popularized by Donald Cressey and W. Steve Albrecht, has been used to explain financial crimes since the 1940s. The theory includes that workplace financial crime and fraud occurs only when an offender has sufficient opportunity, pressure and rationalization to commit the crime. The fraud triangle has been empirically applied to the array of criminal behaviors and specific financial crimes and offenders internationally to determine if all three elements are necessary for the crimes to occur. Design/methodology/approach: This systematic review summarized 33 empirical studies that have applied all three components of the fraud triangle to study financially criminal behavior committed by both corporations and individuals. The review included published and non-published papers and manuscripts from a variety of sources internationally. Findings: Of the 33 studies included, 32 found support for at least one element of the fraud triangle and 27 found support for all three elements. Overall, these studies have shown that the fraud triangle has generally received support across different subjects, industries and countries. Research limitations/implications: This research only examined papers using the “fraud triangle” term. Originality/value: This paper systematically reviewed different types of studies internationally, concluding that the fraud triangle is largely valid internationally as an explanation for financial crimes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
AI-based techniques such as machine learning models for anomalous behavior detection and biometric analyses can quickly analyze large volumes of transactional data and detect and flag potentially fraudulent activity in real time.
“Techniques based on AI, such as machine learning models for anomalous behavior detection and biometric analyses, can provide a way to quickly analyze large volumes of transactional data and detect and flag potentially fraudulent activity in real time (Bhatla et al. 2003; Jang-Jaccard and Nepal 2014; Homer 2020).”
From AI-driven financial fraud detection in Pakistan’s banking sector: bridging strategic intent and operational implementation (2026) · cites this paper as Homer 2020
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 45 · Cited by 99
- Authors
- Homer, E. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Louisville (US)
- Corresponding author
- Homer, Emily M.
- ORCID
- Homer, Emily M.
- Venue
- Journal of Financial Crime
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2019-12-19
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 172-187
- ISSN
- 1359-0790 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3000486259
- Cited by
- 99
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3
- FWCI
- 3.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Financial Crime (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Financial Literacy and Behavior
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Governance and Financial Management
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Accounting and Financial Management
- Keywords
- fraud triangle, opportunity, pressure, rationalization, financial crime, workplace fraud, corporate fraud, fraud theory, fraud risk factors
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review