[duxup]

I wonder how accurate that is. There's plenty of evidence of folks who are desperate doing desperate things... but also plenty of people doing bad things simply for "more" money.

As far as financal status goes I'm not sure how good an indicator this is, for say a support role where you may or may not interact with a bank.

[radicalbyte]

Take the case of this American politician:

https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/wsj-kushn...

The guy's family has a massive debt. He was denied security clearance because that debt makes him a big risk. His party somehow push it through (politicians, sigh) and now he has been bailed out by the Saudi regime (iirc he's foreign secretary to Saudi Arabia or something - the top politician responsible for that country).

In potentially sensitive or powerful positions it's only prudent to look at how susceptible someone is to being influenced. The news is full of stories of people committing fraud to pay for gambling debts. Treason isn't exactly far off of that..

[duxup]

Wouldn't think counter point be all the wealthy political folks who do the same thing?

[Fnoord]

It appears to be indeed a bias towards the poor, in favor of the rich.

[chrismeller]

Why are we acting like the two are mutually exclusive? There are two vulnerability groups here:

1) People with financial difficulties who would be more prone to take small amounts on a regular basis to "round out" their income difficulties. 2) People who, even though financially secure or well off, if given the opportunity for a large score, would be tempted to take it.

There are different approaches for dealing with both, with some overlap. Limiting the possibility for any fraud by limiting access, requiring multiple approvals, etc. helps negate both groups' potential for fraud. Credit checks help to eliminate only the first group's potential.