I’ve not read the article but consider the quote:

A convergence of several of the characteristics I identified is what MAY signal a problem, not one alone.

Well, well, well. It also “may not” signal a problem. As Dennis’ argument suggests, “may” and “may not” isn’t really the issue: Presumably the “Red Flags of Fraud” should be factors suggesting a relatively high probability of fraud. I wouldn’t and I don’t think many others would want to spend a lot of time delving into details of someone’s personal life for factors that simply “may” indicate fraud.

This is perhaps the problem with a narrow view on any subject. To an over-zealous investigator or forensic accountant all employees are potential thieves. Why not worry about designing a nice management control system that actually has a pretty good shot at preventing and detecting such problems without presuming our poor “unstable employee with problems” is likely a thief?

It’s obvious you don’t understand anything about the subject, but are just posting it here to hurt someone.

Anyone ever educate you about libel?

Your ignorance is showing.

No science here, but a healthy dose of prejudice suffices. But according to Tracy – I don’t get it. Damned right I don’t. But then I never did get BS.

As stated in it: “A few of these traits alone do not indicate the potential for fraud, but the probability rises as we identify more of the characteristics.”

A convergence of several of the characteristics I identified is what MAY signal a problem, not one alone. If you want to call awareness of common red flags stereotyping, that’s okay, but I disagree.

Oh, and you keep spelling my name wrong.

Also, how dedicated is too dedicated? What’s unusual dedication?

And who wouldn’t try to rationalize poor work performance if confronted about it?