Posted: February 14th, 2023

Assessing the Feasibility of Applying Criminological Theory to the IS Security Context Robert Willison

Research Essay: Assessing the Feasibility of Applying Criminological Theory to the IS Security Context Robert Willison.

Understanding the Offender/Environment Dynamic for Computer Crimes: Assessing the Feasibility of Applying Criminological Theory to the IS Security Context Robert Willison.

Abstract

There is currently a paucity of literature focusing on the relationship between the actual actions of staff members, who perpetrate some form of computer abuse, and the organisational environment in which such actions take place. This gap in the literature suggests a need for further exploration into how organizational settings influence employee behavior. A greater understanding of such a relationship may complement existing security practices by possibly highlighting new areas for safeguard implementation. By identifying these areas, organizations can enhance their security measures beyond traditional methods. In addition, if insights are afforded into the actions of dishonest staff, prior to the actual perpetration of a crime, then organisations may be able to expand their preventive scope, rather than relying solely on technical safeguards to stop the actual commission of some form of computer abuse. This proactive approach could lead to more effective prevention strategies. To help facilitate a greater understanding of the offender/environment dynamic, this paper assesses the feasibility of applying criminological theory to the IS security context. The integration of criminological insights could provide a novel perspective on information security challenges. More specifically, three theories are advanced, which focus on the offender’s behaviour in a criminal setting. These theories offer a framework for analyzing criminal actions within organizational environments. After opening with a description of the theories, the paper provides an account of the Barings Bank collapse. This case study serves as a practical example to illustrate the application of the theories. Events highlighted in the case study are used to assess whether concepts central to the theories are supported by the data. The analysis of these events will determine the relevance of criminological concepts in this context. The paper concludes by summarising the major findings and discussing future research possibilities. These conclusions aim to guide further exploration in the intersection of criminology and information security.

1. Introduction

There is currently little written about the relationship between the actual criminal actions of staff members, who perpetrate some form of computer abuse, and the organisational environment in which such actions take place [1]. This lack of research highlights the importance of understanding the contextual factors influencing employee misconduct. Insights into such a relationship may complement existing IS security practices by possibly highlighting additional areas in which safeguards could be introduced. By identifying these areas, organizations can develop more comprehensive security strategies. More specifically, if insights are afforded into the actions of dishonest staff, prior to the actual perpetration of a crime, then organisations may be able to expand their preventive scope. This expansion could lead to more effective deterrence of potential criminal activities. Rather than relying solely on technical safeguards such as intrusion detection tools and password system to help stop the commission of a computer crime, other safeguards designed to prevent criminal behaviour, prior to perpetration, would prove to be a useful addition in the preventive armoury of IS security practitioners. These additional measures could significantly enhance the overall security posture of an organization. In an attempt to facilitate a clear understanding of the offender/environment dynamic, this paper assesses the feasibility of applying criminological theory to the IS security context. The application of these theories could provide valuable insights into the motivations and behaviors of potential offenders. Three theories are advanced which specifically address the offender’s behaviour in the criminal setting. These theories offer a structured approach to analyzing criminal actions within organizations. The paper opens with a description of the criminological approaches, which include routine activity theory, environmental criminology and the rational choice perspective. Each of these theories provides a unique lens through which to view criminal behavior. This is followed by an account of the collapse of Barings Bank. The case study serves as a practical example to illustrate the application of the theories. Events highlighted in the account are then drawn on in the discussion and analysis section, to assess whether concepts central to the theories are supported by the data. The analysis will determine the relevance and applicability of these criminological concepts. The paper concludes summarising the findings and discussing further research possibilities offered by the three criminological schools of thought. These conclusions aim to guide future research in the intersection of criminology and information security.

2. IS Security and Criminological Theory

In an attempt to provide new insights into the relationship between the criminal actions of dishonest employees and their workplace environment, criminology would appear to be a potentially fruitful body of knowledge from which to draw upon. This interdisciplinary approach could lead to a deeper understanding of the factors influencing employee misconduct. Clarke [2] notes how: “Most criminological theories have been concerned with explaining why certain individuals or groups, exposed to particular psychological or social influences, or with particular inherited traits, are more likely to become involved in delinquency or crime”. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the underlying causes of criminal behavior. However, in the last four decades, a number of like-minded theories have emerged which, rather than focusing on how people become criminals, address the actual criminal act [2]. These theories shift the focus from the individual to the act itself. Included in this group are routine activity theory, environmental criminology and the rational choice perspective. Each of these theories offers a unique approach to understanding criminal behavior. These theories focus on the relationship between the offender and the actual environment in which the crime takes place and it is for this reason that they are advanced as potentially useful schools of thought for IS security research. By examining this relationship, organizations can gain insights into how to better protect themselves from internal threats. As a first step in assessing the feasibility of applying the theories to the IS security context, this section of the paper describes the three approaches. This foundational understanding is crucial for effectively integrating criminological insights into information security practices.

2.1. Routine Activity

Routine Activity Theory is a relative newcomer to the field of criminology. This theory offers a fresh perspective on understanding criminal behavior. Cohen and Felson [3] discuss how changes in what they describe as ‘routine activities’ of society’s members have impacted on the levels of direct-contact predatory crimes, i.e. crimes where one or more persons directly take or damage the person or property of another. These routine activities are integral to understanding the dynamics of crime. These activities include the provision of food, shelter, leisure, work, child-rearing, and sexual outlets. Each of these activities plays a role in shaping the opportunities for crime. It is argued that these forms of behaviour influence direct-contact predatory (i.e. where one or more persons directly take or damage the person or property of another) crime rates by impacting on the convergence in time and space, of the three elements required for a crime to occur. This convergence is a critical factor in the occurrence of criminal acts. These elements consist of a likely offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian, who, if present, would be in a position to stop a criminal act. The presence or absence of these elements can significantly influence the likelihood of a crime occurring. As the name suggests, the offender is the individual who may, or may not, decide to perpetrate a crime. Understanding the motivations and behaviors of potential offenders is crucial for effective crime prevention. A target may be a person or object that is attacked or taken by the offender. This might include, for instance, a man the offender wants to rob or a car he wishes to steal. Identifying potential targets can help organizations better protect their assets. What also determines a target is whether or not the entity, which forms the basis for a target, either lacks or has present, a capable guardian. The presence of a capable guardian can deter potential offenders from committing a crime. Thus for example, a house where the owner is present is afforded a capable guardian. If, however, the owner is at work, the property lacks a capable guardian and consequently represents much more of a target to the potential offender. This example illustrates the importance of guardianship in preventing crime. Cohen and Felson [3] assert that it takes merely the absence of one of these three elements for a crime not to occur. This assertion highlights the delicate balance required to prevent criminal acts. So for example, drawing on U.S.A. census data and victimisation surveys, they reveal how between 1960-1970, daytime residential burglary increased by 15%. This increase underscores the importance of understanding the factors that contribute to crime. They partly explain this rise by noting how the decade also witnessed an increase of females in the workforce and a rise in the number of individuals living along. These societal changes had a significant impact on crime rates. As a consequence, there was a related rise in the number of properties left vacant and lacking a capable guardian during the working day. This lack of guardianship created more opportunities for crime. Routine activity theory is still in a period of transition, as witnessed by the efforts of Felson [4] to extend its scope. These efforts aim to enhance the theory’s applicability to modern crime prevention strategies. In an attempt to accommodate Hirschi’s [5] social control theory, Felson [4] proposes the incorporation of another element, that of the ‘intimate handler’, to illustrate how people can act as a ‘brake’ on the activities of offenders. This addition provides a more comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing criminal behavior. In his book Causes of Delinquency, Hirschi [5] argues that there are four factors that constitute a social bond between an individual and society. These factors play a crucial role in preventing criminal behavior. These include commitments, attachments, involvements and beliefs. Each of these elements contributes to the strength of an individual’s social bonds. Felson uses the word ‘handle’ to summarise the four elements. This term encapsulates the essence of social control theory. By doing so he argues that the social bond (and hence handle) is a key element in informal social control. This perspective highlights the importance of social bonds in preventing crime. The ‘intimate handler’ represents the individual who is able to exert this form of social control. This role is crucial in deterring potential offenders. The handler is normally someone who is recognised by, and has sufficient knowledge, of the potential offender. This familiarity allows the handler to effectively influence the offender’s behavior. Hence the mere presence of a person known to the potential offender may act as a form of ‘handling’, and consequently a deterrent, by reminding the offender of their social bonds. This deterrent effect can be a powerful tool in preventing crime. By incorporating the concept of the handled offender and the intimate handler into routine activity theory, Felson argues that just as a target must be lacking a capable guardian for the commission of a crime, so too must the offender be lacking an intimate handler. This addition provides a more comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing criminal behavior. Furthermore, as a means of enhancing its contribution to crime prevention, Clarke [6] advocates that routine activity theory could incorporate the category of ‘crime facilitators’. This addition aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing criminal behavior. These relate to items such as cars, guns, and credit cards, which act as tools for specific crimes – as well as dis-inhibitors such as alcohol, which facilitate the precipitation of crimes. Understanding the role of these facilitators can help organizations better protect themselves from potential threats. Clarke [6] argues that if we appreciate how these facilitators are used, it may be possible to identify points were safeguards can be introduced. This understanding can lead to more effective crime prevention strategies.

2.2. Environmental Criminology

Environmental criminology has provided considerable insight into the ‘search’ patterns of offenders and illustrated how the majority of crimes are committed within areas visited by offenders during their routine work and leisure pursuits [7]. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the spatial dynamics of crime. Offenders develop an ‘action space’ in which these everyday pursuits take place and through such activities acquire a detailed knowledge of this environment, leading to what these authors describe as an ‘awareness space’. This awareness space is crucial for understanding how offenders select their targets. Like the rational choice perspective, Brantingham and Brantingham [7] argue that the motivated individual engages in a ‘multi-staged decision process’ prior to the commission – or not as the case may be – of a crime. This decision-making process is influenced by the offender’s awareness space. Such a process is informed through knowledge gathered from the offender’s awareness space. This knowledge allows offenders to make informed decisions about potential targets. Furthermore, they argue that a specific environment emits cues relating to its spatial, cultural, legal and psychological characteristics. These cues play a crucial role in the offender’s decision-making process. With experience, an offender is able to discern certain sequences and configurations of these cues associated with a ‘good’ target. This ability allows offenders to effectively select their targets.

2.3. Rational Choice Perspective

The rational choice perspective focuses on the decision-making processes of offenders [8, 9, 10]. This approach assumes that crimes are chosen by the offender, as a suitable course of action, with the intention of deriving some type of benefit. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the motivations behind criminal behavior. Obvious examples are cash or material goods, but a broader reading of the term ‘benefits’ allows for the inclusion of other forms, such as prestige, fun, excitement, sexual gratification, and domination. These benefits can significantly influence an offender’s decision to commit a crime. Joyriding is an example of how the benefits may take the intangible forms of fun and excitement. This example illustrates the diverse motivations behind criminal behavior. Of further importance to the rational choice perspective is the division of criminal choices into two groups, viz., ‘involvement’ and ‘event’ decisions. This distinction provides a more nuanced understanding of the decision-making process. The former refers to decisions an offender makes regarding their criminal careers. These decisions are influenced by the offender’s long-term goals and motivations. The latter refers to those decisions made during the actual commission of a crime. These decisions are influenced by the immediate circumstances of the crime. These decisions are based on the offender’s perceptions of the situation. Understanding these perceptions is crucial for effective crime prevention. Hence, the decision to carry out a particular criminal act emerges from a reasoning that the associated risks and efforts are outweighed by the perceived rewards. This reasoning highlights the importance of understanding the cost-benefit analysis conducted by offenders. In other words, the decision to carry out a particular criminal act represents an assessment by the offender that the particular situation offers an opportunity. This assessment is influenced by the offender’s awareness space and perceptions of the situation. Given this, an opportunity can be seen as a subjective relationship between an offender and their environment. This relationship is crucial for understanding how offenders select their targets. The approach further assumes that choices are characterised by what is termed ‘bounded’ or ‘limited’ rationality. This concept highlights the limitations of the offender’s decision-making process. In other words, criminal decision making is at times less than perfect, as a consequence of the conditions under which decisions are made. These conditions can significantly influence the offender’s decision-making process. With the associated risks and uncertainty in offending, criminals may make decisions without the knowledge of all the potential costs and benefits (i.e. the risks, efforts and rewards). This lack of information can lead to suboptimal decision-making. Devoid of all the necessary information, offenders may resort to ‘rules of thumb’ when perpetrating offences, or rely on a tried and tested general approach that may be called into action when unexpected situations arise. These heuristics can significantly influence the offender’s decision-making process.

3. Case Study: The Collapse of Barings Bank

On the 26th February 1995, administrators were appointed by the High Court in London (UK) to manage the affairs of Baring Plc. following the identification of substantial losses incurred by a related overseas subsidiary known as Baring Futures Singapore. This case study provides a practical example of the application of criminological theories. This section of the paper provides an account of the major factors that were instrumental in the collapse of Barings. The analysis of these factors will determine the relevance of criminological concepts in this context. The purpose of the account is two fold. First the reader is afforded an understanding of the collapse. This understanding is crucial for effectively applying criminological theories to the case. Secondly, data drawn from this case study is then used in the ‘Discussion and Analysis’ section to assess whether events highlighted in the account support concepts, which are central to the three criminological theories. This analysis will determine the applicability of these theories to the information security context. Two points should be noted here. First, given the limitations on space, the account is simplified, highlighting areas most obviously covered by the theories. This simplification allows for a more focused analysis of the relevant concepts. Secondly, the account is based on the Bank of England: Report of the Board of Banking Supervision Inquiry into the Circumstances of the Collapse of Barings [11] and Stephen Fay’s The Collapse of Barings [12]. These sources provide a comprehensive overview of the events leading to the collapse.

3.1. Brief History and Background of Barings Bank

Prior to its collapse, Baring Brothers & Co. had been the oldest merchant bank in the City’s square mile. This long history underscores the significance of the bank’s collapse. Founded initially as a partnership in 1762, the bank had managed to remain independent and privately controlled. This independence allowed the bank to maintain a unique position in the financial industry. After a near fatal business venture in Argentina, Baring Brothers & Co. was established in 1890 to succeed the partnership. This restructuring allowed the bank to recover from its financial difficulties. In 1985 the share capital of Baring Brothers & Co. was acquired by Barings plc, which became the parent company of the Barings Group. This acquisition marked a new chapter in the bank’s history. Apart from Baring Brothers & Co., the other two principal operating companies of Barings plc were Baring Securities Limited and Baring Asset Management, which played no part in the collapse (and hence will not be referred to again in this account). These subsidiaries were not directly involved in the events leading to the collapse. Baring Securities Limited had commenced business in 1984, specialising in Far East Securities. This specialization allowed the company to capitalize on emerging market opportunities. The company expanded rapidly. This rapid expansion contributed to the bank’s eventual downfall. In the first five years of trading, Baring Securities Limited opened nineteen subsidiary offices. This aggressive growth strategy created significant operational challenges. Aside from the traditional business activities carried out by Baring Brothers & Co., Baring Securities Limited represented Barings first involvement in the securities business. This involvement marked a significant shift in the bank’s business strategy.

3.2. Creation and Management of Baring Futures Singapore

Baring Futures Singapore was one of the new offices that opened during the expansion of Baring Securities Limited, and was formed to specialise in exchange-traded futures and options (i.e. these were Baring Futures Singapore’s bank products). This specialization allowed the subsidiary to capitalize on emerging market opportunities. More precisely, Baring Futures Singapore would execute client business on the Singaporean Stock Exchange (SIMEX) on behalf of Baring Securities Limited and Baring Securities Japan. This role was crucial for the bank’s operations in the region. This client business, also referred to as ‘agency’ business, was managed by Mike Killian (Head of Global Equity Futures and Options Sales) in Tokyo. This management structure created significant challenges for the subsidiary. Baring Futures Singapore would accumulate profits through commission charged to clients. This revenue model was integral to the subsidiary’s financial success. Nick Leeson, a pivotal figure in the collapse of Barings, was asked by Killian to apply for the post of settlements manager. This appointment marked the beginning of a series of events leading to the bank’s collapse. Leeson had acquired the necessary experience through working in the settlement’s section of a Baring Securities Limited department, which specialised in Japanese futures and options. This experience made him a suitable candidate for the position. He accepted the offer, and his name, once submitted to the Management Committee, was approved. This approval marked the beginning of his tenure at Baring Futures Singapore. Previously in 1987, Baring Securities had opened their first Singaporean office in the form of Baring Securities Singapore. This expansion allowed the bank to capitalize on emerging market opportunities. The managing director of Baring Securities Singapore was James Bax. This leadership position was crucial for the subsidiary’s operations. He oversaw a business which traded equities (but not derivatives) on SIMEX. This focus allowed the subsidiary to specialize in a specific market segment. Bax’s second-in-command was Simon Jones, who acted as the Chief Operating Officer of Baring Securities Singapore. This position included responsibility for the back office, which settled Baring Securities Singapore’s equity trading. This responsibility was crucial for the subsidiary’s operational success. Leeson moved to Singapore in early March 1992. This relocation marked the beginning of his involvement in the events leading to the bank’s collapse. Initial problems in the management of Baring Futures Singapore were created shortly afterwards, by the actions of Ian Martin (Baring Securities Limited’s Finance Director). These problems set the stage for the subsidiary’s eventual downfall. Despite the fact that Mike Killian had asked Leeson to run the back office (i.e., the settlements section) of Baring Futures Singapore, Martin instructed Jones and Killian that Leeson would be in charge of the front and back offices. This decision created significant operational challenges for the subsidiary. By so doing, Martin was breaching one of the golden rules of management, which states that there should be a strict segregation of duties between trading and settlement. This breach of protocol contributed to the subsidiary’s eventual downfall. The supervisory failings with regard to Barings Futures Singapore were compounded by the actions of Jones and Bax, who took little interest in the new subsidiary, despite the fact that both were, on paper at least, responsible for Leeson at a regional level. This lack of oversight created significant challenges for the subsidiary. Mike Killian further rejected the idea that there was a reporting line between himself and Leeson. This rejection created confusion over the subsidiary’s management structure. Yet this runs contrary to what Leeson argues, who cites Killian as one of the people who managed him in 1992. This discrepancy highlights the confusion surrounding the subsidiary’s management. Hence from the very start of Leeson’s employment at Baring Futures Singapore, there was considerable confusion over two key areas: first, what his job responsibilities were, and secondly, who managed him. This confusion created significant challenges for the subsidiary’s operations. In early 1993 Leeson started trading on SIMEX in conjunction with Baring Securities Japan’s Tokyo traders who (since the collapse of the Japanese stock market in 1990) made their money through a type of trading called ‘arbitrage’, otherwise known as ‘switching’. This trading strategy was crucial for the subsidiary’s financial success. This section of Baring’s business was known as equity derivatives. This focus allowed the subsidiary to capitalize on emerging market opportunities. Unlike Killian’s business, the trading undertaken by the Baring Securities Japan traders and Leeson was conducted solely to make profits for Barings and not clients, and can therefore be classified as proprietary trading. This classification created significant challenges for the subsidiary’s operations. The manager in charge of the switching business was Fernado Gueller, based in Japan. This leadership position was crucial for the subsidiary’s operations.

3.3. Unauthorised Trading Activities Conducted by Baring Futures Singapore

Leeson was engaged in substantial unauthorised trading on SIMEX through the taking of proprietary positions in futures and options. This unauthorized activity was a significant factor in the bank’s collapse. This section addresses the trading through a brief examination of the history of the account (88888) used to book and record the deals. This examination provides insights into the factors contributing to the bank’s collapse.

3.3.1. Account 88888. Unauthorised trading of futures commenced very shortly after the opening of 88888 and carried on until the collapse in late February of 1995. This unauthorized activity was a significant factor in the bank’s collapse. This trading went largely unnoticed for almost two years and eight months. This lack of oversight created significant challenges for the subsidiary. The only capacity in which Baring Futures Singapore was authorised to transact options was with regard to agency trading. This limitation was crucial for the subsidiary’s operations. However, in October 1992 Leeson started to sell options, and continued to do so until 23rd February, 1995. This unauthorized activity was a significant factor in the bank’s collapse. At the year-end 1992, losses incurred through the unauthorised trading were relatively minor, standing at £2 million. This initial loss was a precursor to more significant financial challenges. One year later, they had grown to £23 million, and by 31st December 1994, the figure amounted to £208 million. This rapid increase in losses created significant financial challenges for the bank. In the space of the following three months, however, this figure had almost quadrupled to a staggering £827 million. This dramatic increase in losses was a significant factor in the bank’s collapse.

3.4. Failure of Internal Controls

The ability of Leeson to establish substantial unauthorised trading positions on SIMEX was afforded by failures in the management, financial, and operating controls in Barings. These failures were a significant factor in the bank’s collapse. These failures were evident in Singapore, Tokyo, and London, and encompassed all levels of control ranging from the management committees, the business functions and associated organisational units, and the actual day-to-day operating controls. This widespread failure created significant challenges for the bank. The following list highlights the areas of failure: Failures in the managerial supervision of Leeson. This lack of oversight was a significant factor in the bank’s collapse. Lack of segregation between the front and back offices of Baring Futures Singapore. This breach of protocol created significant operational challenges. Insufficient action taken by Barings management in response to warning signals. This inaction was a significant factor in the bank’s collapse. No risk management or compliance function in Singapore. This lack of oversight created significant challenges for the subsidiary. Weak financial and operational control over the activities and funding of Baring Futures Singapore at Group level. This lack of control was a significant factor in the bank’s collapse.

4. Discussion and Analysis

In attempting to assess the feasibility of applying the three criminological theories to the IS security context, this section of the paper examines whether events highlighted in the case study support those concepts which are central to the theories. This analysis will determine the applicability of these theories to the information security context.

4.1. Routine Activity Theory: Intimate Handler/Unhandled Offender

Initial management problems were created at the inception of Baring Futures Singapore. These problems set the stage for the subsidiary’s eventual downfall. The BoBS report cites how despite the fact that James Bax (Head of Baring Securities Singapore) and his second in command, Simon Jones (Chief Operating Officer of Baring Securities Singapore) had, on paper at least, regional responsibility for Leeson, neither spent much time overseeing his activities. This lack of oversight created significant challenges for the subsidiary. Although the BoBS report acknowledges there was some contact between the two ‘managers’ and Leeson, it further contends that both Bax and Jones preferred to focus their energies on Baring Securities Singapore. This focus created significant challenges for the subsidiary. Additionally, Mike Killian, who managed the agency business sent from London and Tokyo, and executed by Baring Futures Singapore, rejected the idea of a reporting line between himself and Leeson. This rejection created confusion over the subsidiary’s management structure. Hence, from the start of Leeson’s employment at Baring Futures Singapore, there was confusion over who actually managed him. This confusion created significant challenges for the subsidiary’s operations. This confusion manifested itself in a paucity of oversight from senior management. This lack of oversight was a significant factor in the bank’s collapse. There is some overlap here with the theoretical concepts of the intimate handler and the handled offender. This overlap highlights the relevance of criminological theories in understanding the events leading to the bank’s collapse. The fact that, on the whole, there was an absence of an intimate handler in the form of senior management, provided Leeson with the freedom to undertake his unauthorised trading. This lack of oversight was a significant factor in the bank’s collapse. However, there is a divergence between theory and data with regard to how supervision is actually enacted. This divergence highlights the limitations of applying criminological theories to the information security context. With regard to the intimate handler, their presence is enough to act as a deterrent. This deterrent effect is crucial for preventing criminal behavior. But it was not just the mere physical absence of a manager, which aided Leeson in perpetrating his criminal activities. This absence was compounded by other factors contributing to the bank’s collapse. When Leeson was afforded some supervision, the evidence suggests that the management problem was compounded by the fact that Bax, Jones and Ron Baker (who was later responsible for managing Leeson at a product level) had very little understanding of the products (futures and options) he dealt in and the trading processes which underpinned this business. This lack of understanding created significant challenges for the subsidiary. In this sense, supervision could not be executed properly owing to the ignorance of managers regarding the nature of business undertaken by Leeson and not, in the case of intimate handlers, owing to their absence. This ignorance was a significant factor in the bank’s collapse.

4.2. Routine Activity Theory: Targets

The Barings case, highlights a possible variation on the targets concept inscribed in the model. This variation provides a new perspective on understanding the events leading to the bank’s collapse. Although there is no hard evidence to suggest it, the obvious assumption would be that Leeson carried out the unauthorised trading for personal financial gain. This assumption highlights the importance of understanding the motivations behind criminal behavior. Hence the ‘target’ in this sense would have been the ability to undertake the unauthorised trading, while the benefits represented monies derived from the unsanctioned business. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the cost-benefit analysis conducted by offenders. However, in his book The Collapse of Barings, Fay [12] argues that behind Leeson’s illegal activities was the desire to become one of the elite traders on the floor of SIMEX. This desire highlights the diverse motivations behind criminal behavior. Leeson got to know some of these traders owing to the fact that the companies they worked for (First Continental Trading and Spear, Leeds and Kellogg) used Baring Futures Singapore for clearing their trades with SIMEX. This familiarity allowed Leeson to effectively select his targets. Admiring the status and prestige associated with the elite brokers, Fay argues that Leeson was keen to emulate their activities and establish himself as a name on the trading floor. This desire for prestige and status was a significant factor in Leeson’s decision to engage in unauthorized trading. To do this, however, rather than taking the conventional route, Leeson carried out the unauthorised trading, creating fantastic ‘profits’ through dumping losses in account 88888. This strategy highlights the importance of understanding the decision-making process of offenders. In this sense, the benefit derived from trading was not the obvious one of money, but rather the benefits of prestige and status that were afforded the top traders. This perspective highlights the diverse motivations behind criminal behavior. What the two benefits have in common is the nature of the target, which was the ability to undertake unauthorised trading. This ability was a significant factor in Leeson’s decision to engage in unauthorized trading. Although ‘ability’ has a comparatively intangible nature, it can still be viewed as consistent with routine activity theory, which views a target as one of the elements necessary for the commission of a crime. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. The data not only supports this proposition but, if we subscribe to Fay’s [12] argument, it can be seen to support the rational choice perspective, by illustrating how the ‘benefits’ of crime can come in many guises. This perspective highlights the diverse motivations behind criminal behavior. In Leeson’s case, as noted, his benefits were prestige and status. This desire for prestige and status was a significant factor in Leeson’s decision to engage in unauthorized trading.

4.3. Routine Activity Theory: Guardianship Factors

Compared with traditional applications, the issue of guardianship is far more complex when discussing the collapse of Barings. This complexity highlights the limitations of applying routine activity theory to the information security context. Indeed, a number of safeguard factors can provide guardianship in the banking environment, such as internal/external audit, compliance monitoring, risk management and the like. These factors play a crucial role in preventing criminal behavior. To some extent, these guardianship factors can be perceived as still in keeping with routine activity theory, given that their presence or absence would play a part in determining whether an entity represents a viable target. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. However, it should be noted that the elements that are considered guardianship factors in the Barings case are of a far more complex nature than those traditionally recognised by routine activity theory. This complexity highlights the limitations of applying routine activity theory to the information security context. More specifically, a priori conditions need to be met before they can exist. This requirement highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing the effectiveness of guardianship measures. Take for instance Baring Securities Limited’s internal audit group. This group played a crucial role in preventing criminal behavior. A management committee would have decided on its establishment, the size of the group, and the positions that would need to be created. This decision-making process was crucial for the group’s effectiveness. The employment vacancies would be advertised, people interviewed and selected. This recruitment process was crucial for the group’s effectiveness. Obviously, only after its inception could arrangements have been made for the group to carry out audits in Baring Securities Limited’s various subsidiaries. This operational process was crucial for the group’s effectiveness. Of course, even if guardianship factors like the internal audit group are introduced into the banking context, there is no guarantee that their mere existence will provide effective guardianship over the target they purport to safeguard. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing the effectiveness of guardianship measures. Rather they have to exist and be working effectively. This requirement highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing the effectiveness of guardianship measures. This last assertion can be seen as a slight departure from routine activity theory, which asserts that the existence of a capable guardian would deter a crime. This departure highlights the limitations of applying routine activity theory to the information security context. Obviously of importance here is what exactly constitutes a capable guardian, but routine activity does emphasise how the mere physical presence/existence (as also noted with the handled offender) is often sufficient to provide the necessary guardianship. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing the effectiveness of guardianship measures. Hence the presence of an individual in their home is a good illustration. This example highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing the effectiveness of guardianship measures. Yet in the case of Barings, the existence of a guardianship factor is not sufficient. This perspective highlights the limitations of applying routine activity theory to the information security context. They must exist and be effective. This requirement highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing the effectiveness of guardianship measures.

4.4. Routine Activity Theory: Facilitators

Clarke [13] depicts facilitators as coming from the physical environment. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. However, the internal threat posed by staff, and the organisational environment in which they work, places a different spin on the concept. This perspective highlights the limitations of applying routine activity theory to the information security context. As Willison [14] asserts: “More interesting perhaps is the idea that potential offenders acquire facilitators in the course of their work. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Unlike their physical counterparts, these facilitators are cognitive in nature, and … are assimilated by staff the day they begin working for a particular company.” This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Essentially these cognitive facilitators include those skills and knowledge that a person acquires to perform their jobs. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. A key point here is that, although on the whole these skills are used by employees for perfectly legal activities, they can also be used to help facilitate activities of an illegal nature. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Perhaps not surprisingly, the BoBS report highlights numerous instances of Leeson using his skills in this manner. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Indeed, all his criminal activities were underpinned by knowledge initially acquired to support legitimate work. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. This is clearly revealed by the very fact that the report makes the distinction between authorised and unauthorised trading. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. For Leeson, the knowledge required to undertake the unauthorised trading was gleaned not just from his experience in Singapore, but also in London where he had previously worked in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Barings Securities Limited had commenced trading futures and options in 1989. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. In the same year Leeson joined the department which dealt with the settlements side of this business, and began to develop an in-depth knowledge of these products. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. It was his expertise in this area that landed him the position in Singapore. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Furthermore, while Leeson was acquiring the necessary skills and knowledge to undertake his duties, he was also acquiring an in-depth understanding of the work processes of which his duties were an inherent part. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior.

4.5. Environmental Criminology: Search Patterns of Offenders

Data from the case study appears to support this depiction of a potential offender as an individual who collates information from their awareness space and uses it for criminal purposes. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Leeson’s ‘awareness space’ encompassed the offices he routinely worked in. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. These included not only Baring Futures Singapore and SIMEX, but also Baring Securities Limited (London) where he had worked prior to moving to the Far East. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. While performing his day-to-day duties, Leeson was able to note any weak links in the control environment. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Prior to the commencement of the unauthorised trading, Leeson opened account 88888 to help conceal his aberrant activities. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. He knew from his time in London, that as with other accounts, the trading details of account 88888 would be sent by Baring Futures Singapore to London in the form of four reports, which included a trade file, which gave details of the day’s trading activity; a price file, which reported on closing settlements price; a margin file, listing the initial – and maintenance – margin details of each account; and the London gross file, which provided details of BFS’s trading position. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. In order to stop details of account 88888 reaching London, Leeson instructed Dr. Edmund Wong, a computer consultant, to omit details of the account from three of the four daily trading reports. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. The exception was the margin file. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Leeson was aware that the margin file represented a security vulnerability for Baring Securities Limited, simply because it was routinely ignored by staff in London. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Conversely, for Leeson, the margin file represented no risk with regard to helping to uncover his unauthorised trading, given the oversight by staff in London. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. As a consequence, he was able to ignore it. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Of key importance here is the fact that Leeson worked for Barings. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. This represents a slight departure from the offender’s circumstance traditionally found in the studies of environmental criminology. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. For example, Brantingham and Brantingham [7] cite the work of Dufala [15] whose study addresses convenience store robberies in Tallahassee, Florida. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Dufala reports how, for marketing purposes, the stores were situated near major roads. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. As a consequence, these stores also formed part of the awareness space of offenders who, like many other urban residents, lived nearby. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Leeson’s position, however, would be more comparable to that of a clerk in one of the shops. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Hence, learning his trade and developing knowledge of his target took place in the same context. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. A related point concerns the quality of information that the offender is able to garner. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Although an offender’s rationality is addressed in the next section of this chapter, the concept of bounded rationality ties in nicely with the offender’s circumstance. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Unlike the convenience store robbers studied by Dufala [15], Leeson had access to a relatively high quality of information, which enabled him to assess more accurately potential risks, efforts and rewards. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Access to such information was primarily due to the fact that he worked for Barings. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. His employment first with Baring Securities Limited and then Baring Futures Singapore also provided Leeson with both the necessary time and locations to collate the relevant information. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior.

4.6. The Rational Choice Perspective

There is considerable evidence in the Barings case to support the rational choice perspective. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Prior to the commencement of the unauthorised trading, Leeson clearly planned and executed actions that afforded the necessary conditions to initiate the unsanctioned business. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. One example concerns the manipulation of funding from London. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. When Leeson first started work at Baring Futures Singapore, he informed Gordon Bowser (Head of Futures and Options Settlements in London) that owing to the manner in which SIMEX made margin calls (margin is a form of deposit which is paid when derivatives are traded), it would be difficult for Baring Futures Singapore to raise in time the appropriate monies to meet the requests. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Leeson argued that it would be far easier if the funds could be advanced from London prior to the margin calls. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. What Bowser did not know was that the ‘problem’ of meeting SIMEX margin calls was pure fiction on Leeson’s behalf. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Unfortunately, Bowser believed him and agreed to the request. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. This meant that Leeson could call for funds from London without specifying the trading account to which the request related. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Through his careful planning, Leeson had gained a ‘safe’ source of funding. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. The reconciliation between accounts and funding would have proved a useful safeguard, but by succeeding in gaining advanced funds prior to margin calls, Leeson knew this safeguard would be negated. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. During the commission of the fraud, Leeson continued to demonstrate the actions of a rational offender. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. When losses began to accrue as a result of his unauthorised trading, these were placed in account 88888. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. In order to hide these losses, and in order to avoid detection, Leeson created false journal entries, generated fictitious transactions and sold a large number of options. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. From early 1993 he masked the month end balance of the account by making a journal adjustment, crediting 88888 with a sum which would leave the balance at zero. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. He would then make an additional journal adjustment by debiting the same amount to the SIMEX clearing bank account maintained by Baring Futures Singapore. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. After the month end reconciliation, the transaction was simply reversed. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Although this technique was used on numerous occasions to hide the balance of account 88888, another method involved the selling of options. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Leeson would simply take the premiums collected through the sale of options, and offset this amount against the losses residing in 88888. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. In effect, he was in a position to manipulate his environment to reduce the risk of his fraud being uncovered. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior.

5. Conclusion

This section concludes the paper by summarising the major findings of the discussion and analysis section and advances future research possibilities offered by the criminological theories. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Of the three approaches, routine activity theory appears to offer with regard to IS security. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. The concept of ‘handling’ can be seen to lack the necessary sophistication to theoretically accommodate and explain the supervisory failings in Barings. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. This lack of conceptual sophistication is further evident when discussing the issue of guardianship. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. A determining factor in the utility of both concepts is the complexity of the crime to which they are applied. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Routine activity when first advocated restricted its application to ‘direct contact predatory crimes’ i.e. where one or more persons directly take or damage the person or property of another. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. This is a far cry from unauthorised trading on SIMEX. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. However, when discussing the usefulness of the aforementioned concepts, the issue of granularity should be introduced into the debate. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. The Barings case is extremely detailed, encompassing many individuals and organisations, and as noted the handling and guardianship concepts find it difficult to accommodate such complexity. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. That said the concepts might prove more fruitful when applied to less complex cases of computer abuse. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. The concept of targets is likewise drawn from routine activity theory. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Traditionally, examples of this concept take a physical form, including cars to steal, banks to rob and houses to burgle. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Although the target in the Barings case proved to be the ability to undertake trading, and hence represents a departure from its physical counterparts, this is still consistent with routine activity’s theoretical proposition, which views a target as one of the elements necessary for the commission of a crime. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. The final major input from routine activity relates to facilitators. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. While acknowledging the tangible nature of some facilitators, the case study supports the idea of intangible cognitive facilitators. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Indeed, any understanding of computer crime must be able to account for and consider how cognitive facilitators are used for the commission of such crimes. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. In this sense, the facilitators concept is easily translated into the field of IS security. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior.

5.1. Environmental Criminology

Like facilitators, the theoretical concepts of environmental criminology are easily translated into the IS security field. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. The Barings case provides supporting evidence, illustrating how knowledge of security provisions was used by Leeson to his advantage. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. The search patterns of offenders, married with cognitive facilitators, provide a useful theoretical grounding in understanding how a rogue employee combines knowledge of the environment with the skills acquired through work to perpetrate a fraud. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior.

5.2. Rational choice perspective

Data from the case study further supports the idea of a rational offender. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Leeson clearly planned and executed actions that allowed him to initiate his unauthorised trading. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. During the period in which his aberrant trading took place, he continued to demonstrate the actions of a rational offender. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. When losses accrued as a result of the trading, not only did Leeson place them in a specially designated account (88888), he also instigated actions to hide the losses and avoid detection. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior.

5.3. Future Research

Given these findings, future research could cover the following areas. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. First, the theories could be applied to cases less complex in nature than the Barings collapse. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Individual incidents of computer abuse would provide complementary findings for assessing the feasibility of applying the three theories to the IS security context. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Routine Activity theory, in particular, may offer more fruitful findings when applied to less complex cases. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Secondly, prevention strategies based around the three theories could be examined and considered for the IS security field. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Are the prevention strategies feasible for the IS context and do they offer fresh perspectives for security practitioners and academics? This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Thirdly, complementary criminological concepts could be imported to reinforce the use of the theories, and help to develop more informed prevention strategies. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. For example, the concept of crime ‘scripts’ has been advanced by Cornish [16]. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. As the name suggests, the concept compare a crime to a theatrical script. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. The method helps to break down a crime into individual, but related, stages or ‘scenes’. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Each identifiable stage allows for consideration of the specific context, ‘props’, the actions of the offender and their rational choices which underpin such actions. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. In conjunction with the rational choice perspective, the scripts concept can give a greater understanding of the procedural stages of a specific crime. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Once this is achieved, security strategies can identify prevention points and increase the risks and efforts and reduce the rewards. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. A final point to consider concerns the relationship between IS security and theory. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. One of the general deficiencies of IS security is the lack of theory both used and advocated by academics in the field. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. The position taken in this paper is that in order to understand computer crime and computer criminals, the academic discipline, which can potentially offer substantial insight into this area is criminology. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. Given the multi-disciplined nature of criminology, drawing from psychology, sociology, law, social policy and economics, it can be seen to offer a voluminous body of knowledge which IS security academics can use. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior.

6. References

[1] Willison, R. (2002) Opportunities for Computer Abuse: Assessing a Crime Specific Approach in the Case of Barings Bank. PhD thesis. London School of Economics and Political Science. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. [2] Clarke, R. (ed.) (1997) Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies. 2nd ed. Albany, NY. Harrow and Heston. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. [3] Cohen, L. and Felson, M. (1979) Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach. American Sociological Review 44: 588-608. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. [4] Felson, M. (1986) Linking Criminal Choices, Routine Activities, Informal Control, and Criminal Outcomes. In D. Cornish and R. Cornish (eds.), The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending. New York. Springer-Verlag. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. [5] Hirschi, T. (1969) Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley and Los Angeles. University of California Press. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. [6] Clarke, R. (ed.) (1992) Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies. Albany, NY. Harrow and Heston. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. [7] Brantingham, P. and Brantingham, P. (1991) Environmental Criminology. (2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL. Waveland Press. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. [8] Clarke, R. and Cornish, D. (1985) Modelling Offender’s Decisions: A Framework for Policy and Research. In M. Tonry and N. Morris (eds.), Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research. Vol. 6. Chicago. University of Chicago Press. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. [9] Cornish, D. and Clarke, R. (1986) Situational Prevention, Displacement of Crime and Rational Choice Theory. In K. Heal, and G. Laycock (eds.), Situational Crime Prevention: From Theory into Practice. London. H.M.S.O. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. [10] Clarke, R. and Cornish, D. (2000) Rational Choice. In R. Paternoster and R. Bachman (eds.), Explaining Crime and Criminals: Essays in Contemporary Criminological Theory. Los Angeles, CA. Roxbury Publishing Company. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. [11] Board of Banking Supervision (1995) Report of the Board of Banking Supervision Inquiry into the Circumstances of the Collapse of Barings. London. HMSO. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. [12] Fay, S. (1996) The Collapse of Barings. London. Richard Cohen Books. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. [13] Clarke, R. (1995) Situational Crime Prevention. In M. Tonry and D. Farrington (eds.). Building a Safer Society. Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research. Vol. 19. Chicago. University of Chicago Press. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. [14] Willison, R. (2000) Reducing Computer Fraud Through Situational Crime Prevention. In S. Qing and J. H.P. Eloff (eds.), Information Security for Global Information Infrastructures. Boston. Kluwer Academic Press. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. [15] Dufala, D. (1976) Convenience Stores: Armed Robbery and Physical Environmental Features. American Behavioral Scientist 20: 227-246. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior. [16] Cornish, D. (1994) The Procedural Analysis of Offending and its Relevance for Situational Prevention. Crime Prevention Studies. 3. This perspective highlights the importance of understanding the factors influencing criminal behavior.

References
April, K., Schrader, S. W., Walker, T. E., Francis, R. M., Glynn, H., & Gordon, D. M. (2023). Conceptualizing juvenile justice reform: Integrating the public health, social ecological, and restorative justice models. Children and Youth Services Review, 148, 106887.

An, F. (2024). Data falsification in market research (‘curbstoning’) considered through historical, psychological and criminological perspectives.

Hassan, S., Ahmad, R., Katuk, N., Ghazali, N. N., Aripin, J. A., & Ali, F. (2024). Staying One Step Ahead: Exploring Protection Motivation Theory to Combat Cyber-fraud Among E-services Users. Procedia Computer Science, 234, 1364-1371.

Hu, S., Lei, W., Zhu, H., & Hsu, C. (2024). Cyberbullying perpetration on social media: A situational action perspective. Information & Management, 61(6), 104013.

Polanco, N., & Cheng, B. (2022, October). Situational crime prevention for automotive cybersecurity. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems: Companion Proceedings (pp. 562-568).

Sullivan, C. J., & Childs, K. K. (2021). Juvenile risk and needs assessment: Theory, research, policy, and practice. Routledge.

Vincent, G. M., Perrault, R. T., Drawbridge, D. C., Landry, G. O., & Grisso, T. (2021). Risk-Need-Responsivity meets mental health: Implementation challenges in probation case planning. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 48(9), 1187-1207.

Wang, D. D., Durcikova, A., & Dennis, A. R. (2023). Security is local: The influence of the immediate workgroup on information security. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 24(4), 1052-1101.