It is frequently observed that fraud has a greater economic impact on society than any other category of crime. Arguing that both research and practitioner frameworks in auditing and forensic accounting have tended to adopt an individualizing perspective predicated primarily on solo offending, this article adopts an inductive approach to consider why individuals co‐offend in fraud. It reports the results of a set of interviews with 37 individuals convicted of a range of frauds including financial statement fraud, insider trading, credit card fraud, money laundering, and asset misappropriation. In each instance, the fraud was perpetrated by a group of two or more co‐offenders. Based on inductive, exploratory case coding, we find that reasons for co‐offending vary according to the type of bond that exists between co‐offenders. Two dimensions of fraudulent co‐offending are identified—the primary beneficiary of the fraud and the nature of group attachment—to derive three distinct archetypes of bonds between co‐offenders: (1) individual‐serving functional bonds, (2) organization‐serving functional bonds, and (3) affective bonds. Key elements of each archetype as well as their impact on the decision to co‐offend are examined. Our findings suggest that the social nature of fraud is not merely an incidental feature of the crime but is instead a potential key to understanding its etiology and some of its distinctive features. They also support the need for diagnostic tools to move beyond individualistic analyses of fraud toward a broader, group‐sensitive assessment of fraud risk.

Abstract Most fraud research in accounting has focused on controls rather than offenders' subjective experience, meaning that our understanding of motive in fraud (defined as linguistic devices employed to justify, interpret, or excuse actions) remains underexplored. This is particularly the case for employee fraud, which has been largely neglected relative to top management fraud or financial statement fraud. To provide a richer understanding of how fraud offenders make sense of their offending, we interviewed 30 serious employee fraud offenders to better investigate their typal vocabularies of motive. We focus on holistic narrative accounts to provide insights into the common justifications and excuses presented by employee fraud offenders. We develop a taxonomy of narrative constructions based on the explanatory locus of the accounts offered by offenders. We identify three common justifications, (1) inconsequentiality motives, (2) permission motives, and (3) unfair treatment motives, and three common excuses, (4) personal crisis motives, (5) addiction motives, and (6) appeasement motives. We draw implications for researching fraud, organizational control, and ethics in accounting education.

Arguably the world's most iconic platform organization, Uber relies on a disaggregated labour force and a technology application accessible to users on mobile devices. The company contracts with over three million drivers worldwide and has curated an infrastructure of platform-based control characterized by algorithmic processes. The effects of this new wave of control on the driver-led workforce are unclear. Drawing on interviews with 36 Uber drivers, mainly from Australia and France, this research investigates how the ‘gig economy’ workforce engages with platform-based control. We find that the platform organization's control algorithms operate with strong disciplinary effects. Drawing on Foucault's concept of self-formation, we examine worker responses to the new order of work. We highlight the way workers engage in practices to ‘take care of oneself’, by enduring, subverting or exiting the conditions of algorithmic management. We find that these practices are related to the distance embedded in the field between management and the workforce. In this way, we argue that the gig economy operates differently upon the ‘governable self’ and urge caution in relation to the use of algorithms to control at a distance.