Final answer:
Smart embezzlers may use techniques such as concealing transactions, manipulating records, creating fake invoices, and colluding with auditors. In the given scenario, the employee accused of theft could employ the 'appeal to a higher authority' defense, claiming their actions were for a noble cause. This psychological strategy aims to justify misconduct by portraying it as serving a greater good.
Step-by-step explanation:
Understanding 'Smart' Embezzlement Techniques
To understand how 'smart embezzlers' create faulty Journal Entries (JEs), it's crucial to recognize the methods they may use. These can commonly include: concealing transactions, manipulating records, creating fake invoices, and colluding with auditors. However, when addressing the scenario presented, neither of these choices directly answers the question of how the employee, accused of being a thief for a cash drawer shortage, deals with the label.
Conversely, the situation can be examined through the lens of Sykes and Matza's techniques, specifically the 'appeal to a higher authority'. When faced with accusations of theft, an employee might use this defensive technique by claiming that their actions were driven by a noble cause, such as the need to provide medical care for a sick relative. This approach involves justifying otherwise unethical actions by arguing that the end goal serves a greater good and therefore mitigates the moral weight of the theft.
This defense mechanism is a psychological strategy to protect one's self-image and can be a powerful argument in a workplace confrontation. It does not necessarily reflect the actual use of fraudulent financial tactics such as fabricating journal entries. Instead, it exemplifies one of the ways individuals rationalize misconduct to both themselves and others, potentially influencing the perception of their actions in a professional context.