Neutralization theory proposes that offenders employ cognitive strategies—referred to as neutralization techniques— that enable them to perceive their engagement in an act of crime as morally justifiable. Sykes and Matza (1957) are widely regarded as the spiritual fathers of the theory, which centers on these techniques. They sought to explain why certain people violate the rules, despite the potential negative consequences. According to their theory, neutralizations occur prior to the deviant behavior and thus lower the moral threshold, allowing the behavior to be executed without guilt or moral conflict. Although originally developed to explain juvenile delinquency, neutralization techniques have been considered particularly important for the explanation of white-collar crime (Maruna and Copes, 2005). It is therefore not surprising that rationalizations were part of Sutherland’s differential association theory, who also introduced the concept of white-collar crime (Sutherland, 1947). Similar to neutralization, rationalization is commonly conceptualized as a cognitive strategy whereby individuals seek to legitimize their behavior through the provision of ostensibly rational explanations.