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.

Drawing on Robert Michels's “iron law” of oligarchy, this study examines a governance crisis that unfolded at one of the world's largest professional accounting bodies (PABs)—CPA Australia. We leverage Michels's century‐old contribution to the social sciences to explore how this crisis sheds light on the challenges that PAB governance arrangements can pose when PAB leadership and membership priorities conflict. By applying Michels's seminal work to theorize the origins, escalation, leadership collapse, and eventual resolution of this PAB governance crisis, we illuminate how governance arrangements fueled conflict and fostered a democratic deficit that frustrated sections of the membership in their attempts to debate issues, exercise accountability on leadership matters, and become involved in governance reform. Overall, our analysis reveals that despite espoused principles of equity and participation, PABs are vulnerable to oligarchy impacting how their leaders relate to the interests of their members. Implications for the capacity of PABs to accommodate member conflict and for member participation in the current‐day professional context are discussed.