#fraudtriangle

[thellawtoknow]

The Fraud Triangle as a Legal Problem: Intersections of Motive, Opportunity, and Rationalization

The Fraud Triangle as a Legal Problem: Intersections of Motive, Opportunity, and Rationalization I. Pressure: The Subjective Drive and Legal ResponsibilityLegal Irrelevance of Subjective Pressure to Guilt Pressure as a Mitigating Factor in Sentencing Systemic Pressure and Structural Inequities Comparative Reflections: Pressure in International and Corporate Law Pressure and the Pursuit of Legal Fairness The Legal Centrality of Opportunity Legal Responses: Governing Opportunity through Compliance and Accountability Vicarious Liability and the Dilemma of Diffused Responsibility Legal Accountability and the Ethics of Organizational Design Toward Legal Design for Anti-Fraud Resilience Opportunity as a Legal and Structural Challenge III. Rationalization: The Psychology of Justification and Legal CulpabilityThe Cognitive Architecture of Rationalization Legal Implications: Parsing Intent and Deception Rationalization and the Doctrine of Diminished Capacity Toward a Jurisprudence of Moral Psychology The Law's Dilemma with Self-Deception IV. Implications for Legal Doctrine and Practice1. In Litigation: A Forensic Lens for Understanding Fraud 2. In Regulation: From Punitive Law to Preventative Architecture 3. In Corporate Governance: From Compliance to Ethical Culture 4. In Legal Education: A Multidisciplinary Imperative Toward a Normative Vision Conclusion The Fraud Triangle as a Legal Problem: Intersections of Motive, Opportunity, and Rationalization Fraud, a deliberate act of deception intended for personal or financial gain, represents one of the most persistent and costly threats to institutions, governments, and societies. While much scholarly attention has been given to fraud from criminological, psychological, and economic perspectives, its legal dimension—particularly through the lens of the fraud triangle—demands deeper examination. Originally formulated by criminologist Donald Cressey in the 1950s, the fraud triangle posits that three elements—Pressure, Opportunity, and Rationalization—must simultaneously exist for fraudulent behavior to occur. While this model is often applied in the context of forensic accounting and corporate compliance, it also raises compelling questions about culpability, legal responsibility, systemic regulation, and the adequacy of legal mechanisms in both preventing and punishing fraud.

This essay explores the fraud triangle as a legal problem, examining each of its components in relation to criminal and civil liability, corporate governance, evidentiary challenges, and broader legal theory. It aims to bridge psychological insight and legal accountability, arguing that a nuanced legal framework must be capable of addressing not only fraudulent acts but the complex conditions under which such acts arise. I. Pressure: The Subjective Drive and Legal Responsibility The first vertex of the fraud triangle—pressure, sometimes referred to as incentive or motivation—serves as the psychological and circumstantial impetus behind the commission of fraudulent acts. At its core, pressure reflects a perceived necessity to resolve a problem that cannot be shared or addressed through legitimate means. In practice, this element is often rooted in financial strain (e.g., debt, bankruptcy, poverty), career stress (e.g., meeting quotas, performance targets), personal vices (e.g., gambling addiction, substance abuse), or even socio-cultural expectations (e.g., maintaining a certain social status or fulfilling familial obligations). In corporate contexts, pressure may derive from high-stakes environments where failure is equated with personal ruin, particularly in hierarchical or overly competitive systems. Legal Irrelevance of Subjective Pressure to Guilt In criminal law, pressure is rarely—if ever—recognized as a defense to fraud. The foundational principle here lies in the distinction between motive and intent. While motive may explain why an individual acted, it does not alter what they intended. Fraud, as a crime of intentional deception, requires that the perpetrator knowingly misrepresented a material fact with the purpose of securing an unlawful gain. This mens rea, or guilty mind, is satisfied regardless of whether the individual was under personal, familial, or financial pressure at the time. This doctrinal position is based on the necessity of preserving the rule of law and maintaining a general deterrence function. Allowing pressure to absolve criminal liability would open floodgates to endless justifications and could potentially erode the boundaries of responsibility. Courts, therefore, often note that while pressure might contextualize the behavior, it does not negate its criminal character. Pressure as a Mitigating Factor in Sentencing Nevertheless, legal systems do make room for human vulnerability within the sentencing phase. Under U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines, for instance, judges may consider the "nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant" (18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)). This includes taking into account whether the defendant acted out of personal financial desperation, was under coercion (albeit not to the legal threshold of duress), or experienced mental or emotional difficulties at the time. Similar principles are present in civil law systems, especially those influenced by continental European jurisprudence, where individual culpability is assessed in light of both objective harm and subjective blameworthiness. In some cases, this has led to partial leniency, particularly in jurisdictions with restorative justice frameworks or rehabilitative sentencing philosophies. Yet even here, a clear boundary is drawn: mitigation does not mean justification. A person who steals to feed their family may receive a reduced sentence, but the act of fraud itself is not legitimized. The legal approach insists on retaining the moral and civic norm that fraud is wrong, even when committed under pressure. Systemic Pressure and Structural Inequities The legal treatment of pressure becomes more complex when viewed from the lens of systemic inequity. In many cases, fraudulent acts are committed not in isolation, but within oppressive socio-economic frameworks that generate and perpetuate desperation. Consider, for instance, an employee who manipulates financial records to avoid being fired in an environment with no labor protections, or an unemployed individual who falsifies documents to access public benefits after being denied assistance through bureaucratic failure. Here, law is confronted with a normative dilemma: how to uphold justice when the conditions prompting fraud are themselves unjust. Critics of rigid legal formalism argue that a purely punitive approach ignores the structural violence embedded in modern economic systems. In response, some jurisdictions have experimented with problem-solving courts and context-sensitive jurisprudence, which assess crimes like fraud not solely on individual intent but in light of broader social causality. This raises profound questions about the purpose of law. Should it operate as a neutral arbiter of actions, or also as an instrument of social redress? The fraud triangle, when infused with legal meaning, reveals the importance of calibrated justice: one that acknowledges the reality of human pressure but insists on accountability nonetheless. Comparative Reflections: Pressure in International and Corporate Law In international criminal law, pressure plays a slightly different role, often as a potential excuse or mitigating circumstance in cases involving state coercion or wartime decisions. Although far removed from typical financial fraud, this comparison demonstrates the universal challenge of assessing human behavior under constraint. Similarly, in corporate law, lower-level employees often cite managerial pressure or fear of job loss when explaining fraudulent acts—a pattern particularly notable in scandals like Enron, Wells Fargo, or Wirecard. While these justifications are rarely exonerating, courts may consider whether the individual was effectively coerced by a toxic corporate culture or punitive incentive systems. Some legal theorists have proposed expanding whistleblower protections and compliance reporting precisely to counteract this pressure—recognizing that when internal channels for redress are absent or dangerous, individuals are more likely to resort to fraud as a survival mechanism. Therefore, legal reform in this area must not only punish fraud but also reduce the systemic pressure that incentivizes it. Pressure and the Pursuit of Legal Fairness The concept of pressure, though psychologically compelling and morally relevant, is legally complex. It cannot excuse fraud, lest the legal system sacrifice clarity and deterrence. Yet ignoring it entirely risks treating all wrongdoing as equally blameworthy, regardless of context. The challenge for modern legal systems is thus twofold: to sanction fraud robustly, while also recognizing the human, economic, and systemic pressures that feed it. Legal doctrines must evolve to offer measured responses—firm in principle, but flexible in application. Only by doing so can the law remain both just and humane, guarding against fraud without losing sight of the human condition. II. Opportunity: Systemic Failures and Legal Accountability In the architecture of the fraud triangle, opportunity serves as the practical condition that enables fraudulent conduct. Unlike pressure, which is internal and subjective, opportunity is fundamentally external—an opening in the system that fraudsters can exploit. It is the element most directly tied to institutional structure and, as such, is the point at which law and governance most visibly intersect with the phenomenon of fraud. The Legal Centrality of Opportunity From a legal standpoint, opportunity is the most actionable vertex of the fraud triangle. While motives cannot be criminalized and rationalizations are difficult to detect, opportunity lends itself to objective evaluation, regulatory intervention, and institutional reform. Its legal relevance stems from the fact that it implicates not only the individual perpetrator, but often an entire system of actors and omissions. Opportunities for fraud arise through various systemic weaknesses: - Inadequate internal controls (e.g., lack of segregation of duties, absence of audits), - Deficient corporate governance (e.g., weak boards or conflict-ridden oversight), - Lax regulatory frameworks (e.g., outdated compliance laws or underfunded enforcement agencies), - Cultural complicity (e.g., tolerance for unethical behavior or willful blindness), - Complex legal structures (e.g., shell companies, offshore accounts, and opacity in financial reporting). These systemic cracks not only enable fraud but often shield it from detection, compounding the damage and undermining public trust in institutions. Legal Responses: Governing Opportunity through Compliance and Accountability Modern legal regimes have responded to the opportunity problem with a series of structural reforms aimed at foreclosing access to systemic gaps. Chief among these are landmark legislative frameworks such as: - The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) of 2002 (U.S.), enacted in the wake of the Enron and WorldCom scandals, which imposes stringent requirements on financial disclosures, auditor independence, and CEO/CFO accountability. It also enhances protections for whistleblowers and mandates internal controls over financial reporting (Section 404). - The UK Bribery Act of 2010, which criminalizes the failure of commercial organizations to prevent bribery unless they can demonstrate that they had adequate procedures in place. - The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), Dodd-Frank Act, and similar instruments that seek to reduce the opportunity for fraudulent practices through heightened transparency, external auditing, and regulatory oversight. Central to these reforms is the notion of affirmative legal obligation: institutions must not only avoid wrongdoing but actively construct compliance architectures that detect, deter, and disclose fraud. This represents a significant shift from the older paradigm of reactive legal intervention to a preventive compliance model grounded in corporate governance theory. Vicarious Liability and the Dilemma of Diffused Responsibility A critical legal challenge arises when opportunity results not from individual malfeasance, but from systemic neglect or distributed incompetence. The doctrines of vicarious liability and respondeat superior (holding an employer accountable for the acts of employees conducted within the scope of their employment) attempt to address this diffusion of responsibility. In practice, however, these doctrines are often blunted by the complexity of modern organizational structures. For example: - Who bears responsibility when a fraud is facilitated by a culture of silence tolerated by mid-level managers, but not explicitly endorsed by the board? - Can a CEO be held accountable for failing to detect a complex scheme orchestrated by subordinates several layers removed? - To what extent is "willful blindness"—a deliberate failure to inquire—legally distinguishable from negligent oversight? The answers to these questions vary across jurisdictions and cases, but they frequently lead to protracted litigation, settlements without admission of guilt, or limited accountability. The case of Wells Fargo, for instance, where employees opened unauthorized customer accounts to meet aggressive sales targets, illustrates how institutional pressure and flawed incentive systems can create opportunity zones that escape traditional liability frameworks. Legal Accountability and the Ethics of Organizational Design The legal issues surrounding opportunity are not merely procedural—they are deeply ethical and philosophical. At stake is the question of institutional responsibility: how far must an organization go to prevent wrongdoing within its walls? This shifts the conversation from criminalizing bad actors to engineering ethical systems. Legal scholars and ethicists argue for a prophylactic approach—not unlike public health—where laws should incentivize risk assessments, culture audits, and robust training programs. This approach is especially important in the age of algorithmic decision-making, where opportunities for fraud may arise from opaque systems (e.g., AI-generated financial reporting, automated approvals) whose creators are far removed from their users. Moreover, the legal system must also recognize the hierarchical asymmetry between corporate actors and regulators. The latter are often under-resourced, facing institutions with vast legal departments, lobbying power, and transnational complexity. As a result, even clear-cut instances of opportunity-driven fraud may remain under-enforced or penalized minimally. Toward Legal Design for Anti-Fraud Resilience The solution lies in integrating legal duty into organizational architecture. Laws should mandate: - Risk-based compliance programs tailored to specific industries and company sizes; - Board-level responsibility for fraud prevention (e.g., compliance committees with independent oversight); - Transparent internal reporting systems, with whistleblower protections and incentives; - Third-party auditing, not chosen or paid by the entity under review; - Cross-jurisdictional cooperation, especially for transnational corporations exploiting legal arbitrage. Additionally, shareholder activism and civil society watchdogs must be legally empowered to monitor and challenge systems that perpetuate opportunity without accountability. Legal regimes should not wait for fraud to occur—they must pre-emptively seal the cracks through which it enters. Opportunity as a Legal and Structural Challenge In sum, opportunity is not merely a passive condition—it is a legal problem rooted in institutional design, regulatory efficacy, and the moral priorities of governance. To treat it merely as circumstantial is to ignore the architectonic dimension of fraud: that the systems we build either constrain or enable misconduct. The law must, therefore, evolve beyond punishing fraudulent acts to anticipating and eliminating their enablers. This is a task not only of enforcement but of legal imagination, calling for a proactive, systemic, and ethically grounded approach to organizational responsibility. III. Rationalization: The Psychology of Justification and Legal Culpability The third vertex of the fraud triangle—rationalization—is perhaps the most elusive and philosophically charged. Read the full article

[surveycircle]

Participants needed for online survey! Topic: "The occurence of occupational fraud" https://t.co/PYke5d5s2O via @SurveyCircle#OccupationalFraud #FraudTriangle #occupational #fraud #work #employees #survey #surveycircle pic.twitter.com/YKmioqRHJi

— Daily Research (@daily_research) October 17, 2019

[constructionaccounting]

0277: Construction Contractor Embezzlement Detective - Kelly Paxton Part 2

This Podcast Is Episode Number 0277, And It Will Be About Construction Contractor Embezzlement Detective - Kelly Paxton Part 2 of 2

Kelly Paxton specializes in finding and helping Construction Contractors, other businesses, and government agencies root out Pink-Collar Crime in their companies. The term Pink-Collar Crime was made popular Dr. Kathleen Daly in the 1980s to describe a type of embezzlement crime committed by female employees who may have limited opportunity.

It is thought women in this situation may have a history of committing low level crimes such as check kiting and bookkeeping fraud. Part of the reasoning is women tend to be in less powerful positions compared to men who had a history of engaging white-collar crime.

During our Podcast interview which you can listen to Part 1 by clicking the play button above I asked Kelly why she became interested in Pink Collar Crime.

She replied "...When I started working at the Sheriff’s Office I became intimately involved in seeing the devastation caused by small business embezzlement. What I did not know was the perpetrator committing these crimes. When I was a federal agent most of my targets were typical White Collar Criminals—in other words men.

Kelly goes on to say she was seeing women who had violated the trust of their employers. Out of all the cases she worked at the Sheriff’s Office there was only one male embezzler they came across. The rest were women, all kinds of women: old, young and middle aged. Some had gambling habits, some of them wanted to buy stuff they didn't need, with money they didn't have to impress people. They appeared to share two things in common— they had earned their supervisor's trust and they had the opportunity to embezzle.

The following is a true story from Pink-Collar-Crime Wall of Shame:

Stealing from her sister...

Another medical office embezzlement but this one is a family affair.  Older sister  who is a well paid ($110k per year) office manager stole from her younger sister’s medical practice.  Can you imagine the Thanksgiving dinner they had?  Well it probably didn’t happen.  Reading the story http://bit.ly/2A53LiM is like a soap opera.  At this point therapy may not help. According to the affidavit: “Additionally, airplane flights and in-flight charges were purchased using the card, along with lengthy expensive hotel stays and various vacation charges,…Also noted were charges for plastic surgery and cosmetics.“Lastly, many personal charges (were made), such as car repair, car registration, gas, music, horse boarding, various saddles and accessories for horses and other pets and miscellaneous grocery shopping, etc.” Then in 2014 she came down with an eating disorder and other health issues that prompted her to begin “binge shopping,” according to the affidavit. In addition, one of her daughters began “doing really well with horse riding,” so she began paying for those expenses with clinic credit cards. For everyone who follows me on Twitter or has seen my presentation you know #horsesareaclue. They are expensive and a pink flag. By summer 2016, Shannon Nagle said “she had ‘all sorts of justifications’ for what she was doing and was ‘angry and in denial which was a bad combo,'” the affidavit states. “She felt unappreciated at work, wasn’t getting raises while other employees were and felt that (Melinda) Nagle and (her business partner) believed she wasn’t worth her salary,” according to Fain’s affidavit. Those rationalizations are never a reason to steal but businesses need to understand that everyone rationalizes and opportunity is the only part of the #fraudtriangle you can control. The takeaway from this sad story is that trust but verify even if they are a family member.  I trust my sister with my life but not every family is that lucky.

Click Here For Part 1 Podcast Interview With

Kelly Paxton, CFE, PI Speaker And Fraud Consultant

Editor’s Note: I have only known Kelly Paxton a short time and I trust her and find she is very knowledgeable and capable on the subject of embezzlement and fraud.

I Highly Recommend all contractors spend some time on her website Pink-Collar Crime and get to know her. Kelly is a valuable resource to all contractors. Please let her know Randal DeHart, The Contractors Accountant, recommended you.

About The Author:

Kelly Paxton has more than 13 years of law enforcement experience. Kelly is a Certified Fraud Examiner, Private Investigator and Social Media Intelligence Analyst. Ms. Paxton started her career in law enforcement as a Special Agent for US Customs Office of Investigations in 1993.  Ms. Paxton was recruited by US Customs for her expertise in finance.  She worked white collar fraud, money laundering and narcotics cases.  She also was responsible for the district’s undercover operations and financial reporting of these operations. Kelly worked as a contract investigator doing over 1000 security background investigations for the Office of Personnel Management and Department of Homeland Security. Kelly has worked in the public and private sector. Her most recent position was an investigator at Nike. Her investigations include embezzlement, conflict of interest, intellectual property, Open Source Intelligence and fraud. Kelly is also the proud owner of pinkcollarcrime.com, a passion of hers about women embezzlers in the workplace. She tweets regularly at pdxcfe and has kellypaxton.com also.  

The Information Shown Below Is From Fast Easy Accounting

Download The Contractors APP Now!

Access code: FEAHEROS

The QR Code Below Will Go

Apple Or Android Store

Whichever One

You Need

Simply scan the QR code below or search for ‘MyAccountants’ in the App Store and enter the Access code: FEAHEROS to utilize the powerful App features and capabilities, and benefit from having our Construction Accounting App at your fingertips, 24/7.

Access code: FEAHEROS

Or click to download the Contractors APP now from the App or Android store

     Click here to download the App on iOS:

Click here to download the App on Android:

  I trust this podcast helps you understand that outsourcing your contractor's bookkeeping services to us is about more than just “doing the bookkeeping”; it is about taking a holistic approach to your entire construction company and helping support you as a contractor and as a person.

We Remove Contractor's Unique Paperwork Frustrations

We understand the good, bad and the ugly about owning and operating construction companies because we have had several of them and we sincerely care about you and your construction company!

That is all I have for now, and if you have listened to this far please do me the honor of commenting and rating the Podcast  www.FastEasyAccounting.com/podcast Tell me what you liked, did not like, tell it as you see it because your feedback is crucial and I thank you in advance.

You Deserve To Be Wealthy Because You Bring Value To Other People's Lives!

I trust this will be of value to you and your feedback is always welcome at www.FastEasyAccounting.com/podcast

This Is One more example of how Fast Easy Accounting is helping construction company owners across the USA including Alaska and Hawaii put more money in the bank to operate and grow your construction company. Construction accounting is not rocket science; it is a lot harder than that, and a lot more valuable to construction contractors like you so stop missing out and call Sharie 206-361-3950 or email sharie@fasteasyaccounting.com

Contractor Bookkeeping Done For You!

Thinking About Outsourcing Your Contractors Bookkeeping Services?

Click On The Link Below:

www.FastEasyAccounting.com/hs

This guide will help you learn what to look for in outsourced construction accounting.

Need Help Now?

Call Sharie 206-361-3950

sharie@fasteasyaccounting.com

Thank you very much, and I hope you understand we do care about you and all contractors regardless of whether or not you ever hire our services. Bye for now until our next episode here on the Contractors Success MAP Podcast.

  Our Workflow Removes Your Paperwork Frustrations

For Contractors Who Prefer

To Do Your Bookkeeping

Fast Easy Accounting Do-It-Yourself Construction Accounting Store Is Open

Most Contractors Setup QuickBooks Desktop Version In One Of Three Ways:

#1 EZ Step Interview inside QuickBooks Setup #2 Asked Their Tax Accountant To Setup QuickBooks #3 They Attended A How To Setup QuickBooks Class Or Seminar

And QuickBooks Does Not Work The Way They Want It Too!

The Answer:

#1 Click Here To Buy An Entire QuickBooks Setup For Your Specific Contracting Company

#2 Click Here To Buy Just The Chart Of Accounts For Your Specific Contracting Company

  Short List Of Construction Contractors We Serve

Asphalt ContractorAsphalt Contractor Brand New ContractorBrand New ContractorBrick And Stone ContractorBrick And Stone ContractorCabinet Installation ContractorCabinet Installation ContractorCarpentry ContractorCarpentry ContractorCarpet And Tile ContractorCarpet And Tile ContractorCommercial Tenant Improvement ContractorCommercial Tenant Improvement ContractorConcrete ContractorConcrete ContractorConstruction EmployeesConstruction EmployeesConstruction ManagerConstruction ManagerConstruction Support SpecialistConstruction Support SpecialistCustom Deck ContractorCustom Deck ContractorCustom Home BuilderCustom Home BuilderDemolition ContractorDemolition ContractorDrywall ContractorDrywall ContractorElectrical ContractorElectrical ContractorEmerging ContractorEmerging ContractorExcavation ContractorExcavation ContractorFinish Millwork ContractorFinish Millwork ContractorFlipper House ContractorFlipper House ContractorFlooring ContractorFlooring ContractorFoundation ContractorFoundation ContractorFraming ContractorFraming ContractorGeneral ContractorGeneral ContractorGlass Installation ContractorGlass Installation ContractorGutter ContractorGutter ContractorHandyman ContractorHandyman ContractorHot Tub ContractorHot Tub ContractorHVAC ContractorHVAC ContractorInsulation ContractorInsulation ContractorInterior Designer ContractorInterior Designer ContractorLand Development ContractorLand Development ContractorLandscape ContractorLandscape ContractorLawn And Yard Maintenance ContractorLawn And Yard Maintenance ContractorMasonry ContractorMasonry ContractorMold Remediation ContractorMold Remediation ContractorMoss Removal ContractorMoss Removal ContractorPainting ContractorPainting ContractorPlaster ContractorPlaster ContractorPlaster And Stucco ContractorPlaster And Stucco ContractorPlumbing ContractorPlumbing ContractorPressure Washing ContractorPressure Washing ContractorRemodel ContractorRemodel ContractorRenovation ContractorRenovation ContractorRestoration ContractorRestoration ContractorRoofing ContractorRoofing ContractorSiding ContractorSiding ContractorSpec Home BuilderSpec Home BuilderSpecialty ContractorSpecialty ContractorStone Mason ContractorStone Mason ContractorStucco ContractorStucco ContractorSubcontractorSubcontractorSwimming Pool ContractorSwimming Pool ContractorSwimming Pool And Hot Tub ContractorSwimming Pool And Hot Tub ContractorTile And Carpet ContractorTile And Carpet ContractorTrade ContractorTrade ContractorTree ContractorTree ContractorUnderground ContractorUnderground ContractorUtility ContractorUtility ContractorWaterproofing ContractorWaterproofing ContractorWindow ContractorWindow Contractor

Additional QuickBooks Templates, Resources, And Services

QuickBooks Set Up TemplatesSolopreneurQuickBooks Chart Of AccountsFree StuffQuickBooks Item Lists TemplatesConsulting

We Serve Over 100 Types Of Contractors So If Your Type Of Company Is Not Listed

Please Do Not Be Concerned Because If You Are A Contractor

There Is A Good Chance We Can Help You!

Call Now: 206-361-3950

  Additional QuickBooks Templates, Resources, And Services

QuickBooks Set Up Templates   Solopreneur

QuickBooks Chart Of Accounts     Free Stuff

QuickBooks Item Lists Templates     Consulting

  We Serve Over 100 Types Of Contractors So If Your Type Of Company Is Not Listed

Please Do Not Be Concerned Because If You Are A Contractor

There Is A Good Chance We Can Help You!

Call Now: 206-361-3950

If you are a blogger, who writes about construction we would like to hear from you.

https://www.fasteasyaccounting.com/guestblogger

                                                                                                                                      Contractors_Success_MAP, Contractors_Success_Marketing_Accounting_Production, Contractor_Bookkeeping_Services, QuickBooks_For_Contractors, QuickBooks_For_Contractors,Contractors_Success_Map_Construction_Contractor_Embezzlement_Detective_-_Kelly_Paxton_Par

Check out this episode about Contractors Marketing - Accounting - Production (M.A.P.)!