A

cult leader in the East Java town of Probolinggo, Dimas Kanjeng Taat Pribadi, has emerged as an instant celebrity for all the wrong reasons. Despite the fact that he was arrested for allegedly ordering the murder of two of his followers last year, he rose to fame due to video footage showcasing what his followers believed to be his “divine” power by literally multiplying money in front of their very eyes.

Now the police have moved to charge him with fraud and money laundering. Reports say Dimas’ cult has over 3,000 followers in East Java alone, some of whom are public figures and intellectuals. He set up a foundation that collected money from his followers.

The cult leader phenomenon is not new in Indonesia. Nevertheless, the case of Dimas has drawn interest as he apparently did not need much (tricks) to influence even intellectually gifted people to pledge their allegiance to him. All Dimas did was show off his get-rich-quick “magic tricks” and suddenly everybody worshipped him.

In comparison, Bernie Madoff built up his reputation in the US financial industry through decades of experience, a former stockbroker, investment advisor, financier and non-executive chairman of the NASDAQ stock market, before attracting people to participate in his get-rich-quick scheme.

Despite the mystical aspects of the money multiplication rituals performed by Dimas, the scheme, like many other get-rich-quick schemes, is essentially a form of affinity fraud.

This is a fraud scheme (commonly in the form of investment scams) that preys upon members of identifiable groups, such as religious groups, ethnic communities, professional groups, just to name a few.

The perpetrators take advantage of their followers’ basic human nature to trust someone who is part of the group, especially its leader.

The affinity fraud phenomenon appeared to have mushroomed as soon as Dimas was arrested. Many victims, however, were reluctant to file a report, mainly due to embarrassment for being conned by the perpetrator.

Anthropologist Alan Page Fiske proposes four models of relationship that can co-exist within a group: communal sharing, equality matching, authority ranking and market pricing. Each model has its own inherent trust.

A fraudulent cult culture leader can exploit his followers’ trust in a communal sharing relationship. On the other hand, from the equality matching point of view, the cult leader may provide support to his followers, but at the same time demand something in return (e.g. loyalty and participation in his scheme).

A cult leader can also develop an authority ranking relationship with his followers, in which an impersonal structure is established. Within the structure, he cements his status as an authoritative figure and thus others are obligated to obey his orders.

In a market pricing relationship, money commonly becomes the medium of exchange in interactions. For example, a cult leader may ask his followers to “invest” in the form of money with a predetermined “rate of return”.

In short, a key to a successful, cult-related fraud scheme is the perpetrator’s ability to exploit trust in different types of relationships among cult members.

Self-deception is another factor behind the sustainability of such a scheme. Studies reveal that generally humans are inherently susceptible to self-deception, some more than others.

Within self-deception, people see the world the way they want it to be rather than the way it is.

What causes some people to be more prone to self-deception has been the subject of various studies. Some experts believe that self-deception is caused by so-called “cognitive simplicity”, which is when an individual chooses to pay attention to only a small amount of information despite the availability of other important information in analyzing a complex matter.

This explains why so many highly educated people can fall for affinity fraud. For example, one of Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme victims was a university professor who wrote a book on gullibility and scams.

Experts believe that numerous factors play a role in one’s tendency to resort to cognitive simplicity. Culture, for example, is believed to influence one’s decision to resort to cognitive simplicity regardless of intellectual capability. Someone who originates from a culture that values image and charisma more than character and competence may be more prone to affinity fraud despite his or her education.

In the case of Dimas Kanjeng’s loyal followers, many of them are now viewed by the public as self-deceivers who live in a fantasy land unable to handle the truth. In reality, self-deception is not specific only to affinity fraud.

As postulated by criminologist Donald Cressey over half a century ago, rationalization is one of the major driving factors for people to commit occupational fraud (e.g. corruption). A common form of rationalization is denial and at the core of denial is no other than self-deception.

Interestingly, in cult-related affinity fraud, self-deception is used not only by the victims but also by the perpetrators. A fraudulent cult leader may deceive himself into thinking that he is some kind of holy man or even a prophet.

For the purpose of preventing affinity fraud, eliminating self-deception may not be an option as it is deeply ingrained in our minds. In fact, some experts believe there are benefits from exercising positive self-deception, such as for health and happiness.

What people can do is gradually shift from cognitive simplicity to cognitive complexity, where they pay attention to as much information as they can get to make decisions regarding complex matters. In other words, all the decisions to join, stay, or leave a group or community must be logical rather than emotional.
__________________________________

The writer is the director of the Center for Forensic Accounting Studies at the Islamic University of Indonesia, Yogyakarta. He obtained his Masters and PhD in forensic accounting from the University of Wollongong, Australia.