Implications of a Fragile Professional Identity on Role Behavior: An Exploratory Case of an Accountant Fraudster

Abstract

This study explores identity-related issues ensuing from the behavioral choices of a professional accountant who was convicted for defrauding clients of money entrusted to him. It is grounded in data collected from semi-structured interviews with the offender and his companion (partner in life), supplemented with transcripts derived from court hearings. Our findings suggest that the offender was an accidental fraudster whose crime was committed because of his personal traits and because he abandoned an apparently fragile professional identity for a dominant alternative identity. This led the offender to violate professional norms and self-rationalise illegal activity as both temporary and beneficial to his client. Our data illustrate the perils of the professional accountant identity not being firmly established, maintained or regarded as dominant; it enables behavior inconsistent with the professional ‘accountant’ identity, including criminal activity. This study extends understanding of fraudulent accounting practice by illustrating the role of professional identity in preventing illegal practice in the context of a qualitative forensic case study. It highlights the centrality of professional identity formation, maintenance and reinforcement, particularly in the context of identity conflicts.

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to the offender and his companion for their cooperation and participation in this study on matters normally considered private. The offender requested that they remain anonymous so every effort was made to protect their identity. We also acknowledge Keith Houghton and Barry Cooper for their invaluable feedback.

Supplemental Data and Research Materials

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the Taylor & Francis website, doi: 10.1080/09638180.2018.1523018

Notes

1 A Ponzi scheme is a scheme where earlier investors are paid false profits from funds collected from new investors. There is no real business to generate any profits. As long as new members are recruited, there is an illusion of profitability and the pyramid survives.

2 In a nutshell, social identities are in terms of ‘we’ and personal identities are in terms of ‘me’. Both can be informed by a range of processes (individual and social) but the key differentiator is whether it is a ‘me’ or a ‘we’ (the latter form is shaped by processes fostering a positive distinctiveness – relative to other social groups – of the ‘we’).

3 R (R refers to the Crown – short for Rex [King] or Regina [Queen]), v Offender, County Court, [2002], County Court of Victoria, Australia (VCC).

4 R v Offender, County Court, [2003], VCC.

5 R v Offender, County Court, [2002], VCC.

6 R v Offender, Court of Appeal, [2003] Victoria Supreme Court of Appeal (VSCA) 69, 4 June 2003.

7 R v Offender, County Court, [2003], VCC.

8 R v Offender, Court of Appeal, [2005], VSCA.

9 R v Offender, County Court, [2002], VCC.

10 Online Appendix 1 captures the identities expressed in the offender's words and facts established by the court.

11 R v Offender, County Court, [2003], VCC.