Final answer:
An individual modifying company invoices to divert funds to their own account would be considered an internal actor committing financial crimes. They are distinct from external criminal organizations like transnational organized crime syndicates or terrorist groups, and their actions can have serious, wide-ranging impacts on economies and trust in institutions.
Step-by-step explanation:
Modifying company invoices and diverting funds to a private bank account is a clear example of an internal actor engaging in financial crimes. This term refers to individuals within an organization who abuse their privileged access to assets or information for personal gain. Unlike transnational organized crime syndicates or terrorist organizations, which are often external and involve multiple members across borders, internal actors operate from within and typically alone or in small groups.
An internal actor could be an employee, manager, or even a high-level executive. The motivation for such behavior can vary, but often includes financial gain, revenge, or achieving some form of perceived justice. This is distinct from the violent non-state actors (NSAs) mentioned, which have different structures, motives, and impact that extends beyond financial damage and into issues of international security and human rights violations.
Criminal activities like the one mentioned undermine the financial stability and integrity of companies and can result in significant losses. Catching such internal malicious actors requires robust internal control measures and monitoring systems. While these crimes may seem less harmful than other types because they don’t involve direct violence, their impact can be profound, affecting countless victims by disrupting economies, eroding trust in institutions, and causing widespread financial harm.