{"id":4368,"date":"2026-01-11T09:15:01","date_gmt":"2026-01-11T09:15:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/prosecure.com.tr\/no-crime-is-committed-alone-but-can-a-crime-of-abuse-be-committed-alone-is-it-an-individual-case-or-is-it-organized\/"},"modified":"2026-04-13T05:40:55","modified_gmt":"2026-04-13T05:40:55","slug":"no-crime-is-committed-alone-but-can-a-crime-of-abuse-be-committed-alone-is-it-an-individual-case-or-is-it-organized","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/prosecure.com.tr\/en\/no-crime-is-committed-alone-but-can-a-crime-of-abuse-be-committed-alone-is-it-an-individual-case-or-is-it-organized\/","title":{"rendered":"No Crime is Committed Alone. Is Abuse Crime an Individual Case or Organized?"},"content":{"rendered":"

“No crime is committed alone”. There are always one or more other criminals with the perpetrator. Unless they are found, a fraud case cannot really be considered solved. Because…
\n<\/strong>Hasan Alsancak, 09.01.2026<\/p>\n

“The text emphasizes that corporate misconduct is often not just one “bad apple” <\/strong>in a basket, but occurs within an ecosystem of active accomplices, passive bystanders, weak internal controls, problematic corporate culture and inadequate governance. While it may be tempting from a communication perspective to blame a single individual and close the file, it does not reflect reality and hinders organizational learning. Therefore, the key question for leaders should be “How was this possible in this company?” rather than “How did this person do this?” <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

When discussing misconduct in the corporate world, the focus is often on a single “bad apple”. Headlines and management presentations usually point to one person: Accounting manager, procurement specialist, branch manager… That person is dismissed, “necessary actions have been taken” and the case is closed. <\/p>\n

However, both case studies and empirical research show that internal fraud is very often the product of collaboration,<\/strong> and that the individual perpetrator narrative is an incomplete reflection of reality. Particularly in complex accounting and procurement fraud, networks of internal and external actors, organized structures and “professional facilitators” (such as lawyers, accountants, consultants) are found to act in concert. <\/p>\n

Consistent with the findings of ACFE and similar studies, the case studies emphasize that misconduct often occurs with active accomplices and passive “bystanders”<\/strong>, and that single-person narratives undermine organizational learning.<\/p>\n

Why the Single Offender Story is Tempting – and Why it’s Dangerous<\/strong><\/p>\n

For companies, finding a single “scapegoat” is fast, practical and attractive in terms of communication. Management wants to reassure internal and external stakeholders that “the problem has been identified, the person has been removed, the risk is over”. But research points to two critical risks: <\/p>\n

    \n
  1. It does not reflect reality:<\/strong> Large and protracted fraud is often shown to involve multiple perpetrators and\/or supporters, with internal and external actors acting in concert.<\/li>\n
  2. The organization cannot learn:<\/strong> Focusing on the individual leads to ignoring the real triggers: weak internal control, problematic culture and poor governance<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    So really solving a case starts with “How was this possible in this company?” before asking “How did this person do this?”.<\/p>\n


    \nTrue Accomplices: People, Processes, and Culture<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The studies summarize the structure enabling corporate misconduct in three main dimensions:<\/p>\n