Final answer:
Employee embezzlement can take various forms, from not paying for goods to tricking organizations. In dealing with accusations, an employee may justify their actions as being owed payment or serving a nobler purpose. These justifications do not excuse theft and contribute to issues like loss of trust and identity theft.
Step-by-step explanation:
The distinction between indirect and direct methods of employee embezzlement can be illustrated through various fraudulent actions. When dealing with customer fraud, there are several methods by which an individual can unjustly gain or withhold payment. Misrepresenting the need for goods, altering payment amounts, or deceiving organizations can all be forms of embezzlement or fraud.
In the provided scenario where a retail store cashier's drawer consistently comes up short, the employee could be suspected of theft. If confronted by their employer, they might use techniques such as Denial of the Victim or Appeal to a Higher Authority to justify their actions. The Denial of the Victim involves the employee rationalizing that they were owed the money due to perceived injustices, such as not receiving a raise. Alternatively, an Appeal to a Higher Authority could involve the employee justifying the theft on the grounds that it served a nobler purpose, such as paying for a sick relative's medication.
It is important to note that these justifications do not excuse illegal behavior and are considered unethical. Trust in institutions, such as banks and retail stores, can be eroded by such actions, leading to broader societal issues like loss of trust and identity theft.