Assume that the following facts and circumstances are grounded in evidence: An information technology employee has control over aspects of business operations of a small business, including financial and nonfinancial information. The small business is contracting for services that are not needed nor performed by a service provider. Evidence suggests that the benefit (conversion) is indirectly tied to the IT employee and the owner of the service provider who appear to be splitting the proceeds proportionally. Evidence eliminates all other employees except the IT employee. Evidence suggests that both the IT employee and owner of the service provider as shady characters, both with juvenile offense records, speeding tickets, and police reports to domestic issues in the local papers (no convictions on record). Case discussion: Which fraud model, the fraud triangle, the fraud scale, or the acronym M.I.C.E., offers the best possible explanation for the actions of this collusive fraud team: the IT employee and owner of the service provider? Why?