Source: https://theriskmanagementparadox.com/2013/08/10/city-harvest-case-part-4-can-you-rationalize-a-crime-to-be-beneficial-to-society/?replytocom=279
Timestamp: 2019-05-25 15:00:30
Document Index: 202654900

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 4', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 5', 'art 3', 'art 5', 'art 4']

City Harvest Case part 4: Can you Rationalize a Crime to be Beneficial to Society? | The Risk Management Paradox
Posted on August 10, 2013 by Marc Ronez
In the CHC case, using the Fraud Triangle Risk Assessment model to guide this analysis, I have highlighted in my previous posts, “City Harvest Case part 2: If There is a Fraud What would be the Motives?“ and “City Harvest Case Part 3 – The Opportunity Makes the Thief“, that the environment in CHC was very favorable for unethical/fraudulent behaviors. Indeed a careful examination of the factors leading to unethical and even fraudulent behaviors showed that the defendants had the incentive or felt the pressure to break the rules (Fraud Triangle Factor 1), and they also had the opportunity to do it and the ability to conceal their actions (Fraud Triangle Factor 2). Now, last but not the least, we will examine in this post the Fraud Triangle 3rd Factor i.e. RATIONALIZATION. This factor implies that the accused CHC leaders would need to find a way to somewhat justify (or RATIONALIZE) their behaviors to be able to break the rules. Why? Simply because almost nobody likes the very negative feeling of thinking about himself as being an unethical person or even worse a fraudster as this would create a painful cognitive dissonance.
So keep on the lookout for my next post entitled: City Harvest Case part 5: CHC’s Crossover or Sun Ho’s Crossover?
This entry was posted in Business Ethics, CHC Case, Corporate Governance, Fraud, Reputation Risk Management, Risk Communication & Perception and tagged Ethics, Integrity, Reputation Risk, Risk Assessment. Bookmark the permalink.
← City Harvest Case part 3 – The Opportunity Makes the Thief
City Harvest Case part 5: CHC’s Crossover or Sun Ho’s Crossover →
4 thoughts on “City Harvest Case part 4: Can you Rationalize a Crime to be Beneficial to Society?”
Thank you for a very well thought out presentation and examination of the facts available to help us have a deeper understanding of the case. Your model of Risk Assessment certainly open my eyes to this aspect of business management or organisation governance. Appreciate your effort. Looking forward impatiently to the next part – just like a thriller. Cheers!
gchen says:
hi marc- thanks for your posts. i stumbled on them. I think they are among the most reasoned, well argued blogs. Most blogs tend to run the extremes of aggrieved churchgoer, indignant/defensive CHC member and expletive-laden rants. I like your use of the fraud model to frame your arguments. Pls keep them coming. I haven’t had time yet to read all – am into post #4. Your point about having an avenue for whistle blowing- that’s very interesting, and will not be easy at all for a church or religious organisation where members tend to view their leaders/pastors through an overly reverent lens.
Mr Low Kok Kok says:
Your articles on City Harvest Church are well written with extremely informative insight. It would certainly make readers realise the folly of believing preachers who claimed to have spoken to God or that God spoke to them. If God had spoken to them, then why God did not speak to me? Is it fair when we know God is supposed to be fair to everyone of his creation?
Therefore, I could claim that God had spoken to me when in reality, I had only spoken to myself to do the things that I wanted to do to have a good life at the expense of and to make a fool out of other people.
Pingback: A Risk Management Perspective on the CHC Case Mrs Light and Friends
Leave a Reply to gchen Cancel reply