| dc.description.abstract | Aims and objectives:
The aim of this study was to increase the knowledge of fraud and therefore contribute with a
greater understanding of the phenomenon. It was also to study how different kind of frauds’
opportunity structure looks like and investigate if there are some similarities between them.
The goal was therefore to fill the knowledge gap of how opportunity structure for frauds are.
- What similarities exist between different kind of frauds and their opportunity
structure?
- What distinctness is there between different kind of frauds and their opportunity
structure?
- How can the knowledge of the opportunity structure for frauds contribute in work with
crime prevention?
Methods and data:
A qualitative study with document analysis was used to analyse different cases of fraud.
Primarily, data was collected from different kind of legal cases (plaints and the judicial
decisions). Five different cases were studied, each representing one kind of victim – bank,
private person, insurance company, aid organisation and municipality. Only Swedish cases
were studied. A strategic sampling was used, focusing on the variation in each type of case,
all in the same timeframe, 2010 to 2018. A thematic analyse was thereafter used, to identify
similarities and differences in the opportunity structure – all to identify different themes.
Results:
There are multiple similarities between different kinds of fraud, but one of them is standing
out – insurance fraud. Four different themes were identified in the opportunity structure; lack
of capable guardians, suitable targets, rationalisation and social association with other
individuals that affect the person into committing crimes. Lack of capable guardians can also
be lack of control in an organisation, or absence of friends/family/colleagues that can prevent
the crime. Suitable targets are often identified in the routine activity, both the offender and the
victim – either in private life or work-related. Rationalisation is often used by the offender to
neutralise her/his actions – denial of damage, denial of victim or denial of responsibilities.
Social associations with people that are close to the offender all influence her/him, in the
same way as he/she affects them. These four themes were the main result of the opportunity
structure of frauds. If one of those factors is excluded, the crime can be prevented. | sv |
