Assume$$that$$the$$following$$facts$$and$$circumstances$$are$$grounded in$$evidence: a$.$An$$information$$technology$$employee$$has$$control$$over$$aspects$$of business$$operations$$of$$a$$small$$business$,$including$$financial$$and nonfinancial$$information$.$ b$.$The$$small$$business$$is$$contracting$$for$$services$$that$$are$$not$$needed nor$$performed$$by$$a$$service$$provider$.$ c$.$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$$proportionally$.$ d$.$Evidence$$eliminates$$all$$other$$employees$$except$$the$$IT$$employee$.$ e$.$Evidence$$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$?$