2.8. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.8.1 The rational choice theory
54
55
antisocial behaviour. A distinction between crime and criminality is that crime is an event whereas criminality is a personal trait” (Siegel, 2011:86). The researcher initiated a linkage to the commission of personal income tax fraud with the RCT, as this kind of fraud may be committed for the benefit of an individual or organisation. The benefits or gains derived from fraud that is committed by an individual may be direct, such as the receipt of property or money, or indirect in the form of bonuses, promotion, power or influence. A conspiracy follows with the intent of committing a crime, and there is an agreement with another person to engage in that crime where one of the conspirators commits an overt act to further the conspiracy. As previously stated, tax fraud offenders are motivated by a desire for pecuniary gain in order to inflate their wealth by avoiding payment, in one way or another, of taxes.
It is also noted that tax evasion inflates perpetrators’ wealth and it also imposes “a pecuniary loss on others and the government that is directly harmed by losing revenue, and fellow citizens are indirectly harmed as they absorb a higher tax burden” (Cascarino, 2015:329). The application of the RCT may inform policy and practice to curb or even eradicate reoffending because it proposes that punishment should be imposed for any crime that has been committed, as the offender has weighed the advantages and disadvantages before committing that crime, (i.e. tax fraud).
Therefore, the RCT supported the hypothesis that perpetrators of income tax fraud know before they commit this crime that it is an offence. Therefore, either civil or criminal penalties should be imposed for all fraud cases that are committed with proven intent. In the context of the RCT, conspiracy is linked to cases where the taxpayer or tax practitioner arranges to commit tax fraud with a registered tax practitioner for the benefit of both the taxpayer and the tax practitioner (i.e.
a rational choice). This implies that the taxpayer and the tax practitioner weighed the benefits of committing such a crime, and decided wilfully that they would gain financially regardless of losses to the state and the community through a heavier tax burden. The benefits in this case can be a refund from SARS. The potential offenders normally weigh the advantages of committing personal income tax fraud against the possibility of arrest and imprisonment to decide whether to commit this crime or not. Their criminal behaviour in this instance affords them with immediate benefit with a slight risk of being caught and a lesser risk of punishment.
56 2.8.1.3 Analysis of the rational choice theory
According to the researcher, the RCT is in line with the functions of the CJS, which propose that offenders should be punished for committing crimes because they have weigh the benefits and calculated the advantages prior to committing crime. This means that they knew what the consequences of their criminal act might be. The RCT also assumes that criminal behaviour is a personal choice. However, in some cases tax fraudsters negligently commit tax fraud as they do not believe that they are ‘killing anyone’ but are merely solving their personal financial problems. They are not aware of how their actions will affect the economy. RCT proposes that people are encouraged to maximise their preferences by acquiring wealth and power through fraud. However, not all such choices are economically driven, and preferences can be maximised based on the determination of other values.
2.8.1.4 Criminals by necessity or choice?
The following question was posed by Samenow (s.a.) (in Awake, 2008:4): “Is crime the only choice that some people have in order to survive?” This author views crime as “being almost a normal, if not excusable, reaction to the grinding poverty, instability, and despair that pervade criminals’ lives”. However, after extensive research, this researcher posits that criminals “choose to commit crimes [and that crimes are] caused by the way [the person] thinks, not by his environment”. Samenow (s.a.) (in Awake, 2008:4) further adds that behaviour “is largely a product of thinking. Everything we do is preceded, accompanied, and followed by thinking”. So, rather than regarding criminals as victims, this researcher concluded that they are “victimisers who had freely chosen [sic] their way of life.”
The key word in this researcher’s argument is ‘chosen’. In fact, an article in a British newspaper stated the following: “Crime is a career of choice for young urban men aspiring to better things.
Humans have free will and can choose the course they want to take, even under difficult circumstances. To be sure, millions struggle daily against social injustice and poverty, or they may live in dysfunctional families, but they do not become criminals” (Samenow, s.a) (in Awake, 2008:4). In support of this article entitled ‘Criminals cause crime’, Samenow (s.a) (in Awake, 2008:4) states that it is not “bad neighbourhoods, inadequate parents … or
57
unemployment [that] contribute to the causation of crime. Crime resides within the minds of human beings and is not caused by social conditions.”
In light of the above arguments, the researcher of this study is of the view that the cause of personal income tax fraud has its roots in the belief that the perpetrators of this crime make rational choices prior to engaging in fraudulent activities and that they calculate their actions to avoid being caught. To this end, they weigh the choice to engage in the commission of this crime or not. They normally choose to commit this crime because the gains are estimated to be greater than the chances of being caught, and the penalties might be bearable times.
In summation, this theory is rooted in the view that the commission of personal income tax fraud is the product of rational choice. This can further be linked to the RAT, motivation (monetary value), and learned values that are all incorporated into a perpetrator’s behaviour and personal conscience and desires and the potential for being caught. This implies that motivated perpetrators are driven by greed, lust for power other forces that are drivers of the commission of personal income tax fraud. In the context of this study, any resident in Durban may potentially become a victim of different types of personal income tax fraud.
The accessibility to and availability of various resources on the part of perpetrator also need to be taken into account. However, no literature could be traced to determine why certain individuals are more inclined to become perpetrators of this crime and why they become repeat offenders.
One reason may be the availability of a suitable target, such as a vulnerable company. In this context, it is argued that the penalties that apply for personal income tax fraud should be highly publicised to render the anticipated results of this criminal behaviour less appealing. The prospect of a long jail term to deter potential perpetrators should be coupled with placing more emphasis on prevention of this crime and the introduction of new legislative frameworks to combat this practice. The absence of capable guardians such as auditors and security personnel should be addressed. The financial gains that may be reaped by committing this crime and the limited possibility of being imprisoned influence the commission of this crime.
58