Table 1_Survey-based evidence on occupational fraud exposure, reporting behavior, and informal norms in Romania, Ukraine, and the Republic of Moldova.docx

Multiple Correspondence Analysis, followed by k-means clustering, was used to explore aggregated response typologies.</p>Results<p>Perceived fraud typology differed significantly across surveyed national subsamples (χ² = 58.16, p < 0.001; Cramér’s V = 0.17). Among surveyed respondents from Ukraine, higher-frequency proposals to engage in potentially fraudulent or unethical activities were more common (ITM_4, categories 3–5: 28.6% vs. 18.2% in Romania and 17.2% in Moldova).

Personal victimization was also highest among surveyed respondents from Ukraine (14.6%), whereas indirect victimization, measured as knowing victimized colleagues, was highest among respondents from Moldova (46.4%). A two-cluster solution separated a large “lower-exposure/refusal-dominant” profile from a smaller “higher-exposure/non-refusal-enriched” profile that was more frequent among respondents from Ukraine and Moldova.

In adjusted outcome models, several contrasts persisted: respondents from Ukraine showed higher odds of fraud-related/unethical proposal frequency, perceived workplace gift/hospitality acceptance, and selecting no action rather than notifying management (OR = 3.82, 95% CI 1.65–8.85), whereas respondents from the Republic of Moldova showed higher odds of personal/indirect victimization and perceived colleague involvement.</p>Conclusion<p>Among surveyed respondents, exposure, reporting behavior, and informal workplace norms varied across the three national subsamples.

The findings cautiously suggest that anti-fraud interventions may benefit from considering the reporting cultures and perceived exposure patterns observed in each surveyed subsample. However, because the sample was non-probabilistic and effect sizes were generally small, policy implications should be interpreted as exploratory. They should not be generalized to national populations without further representative research.</p>