The Fraud Diamond theory (rationalization, opportunity, motivation and perceived capability) has been widely used as a framework to explain criminal behavior. However, little is known about its application in an academic context. Research on the relationship between the prevalence of academic fraud (e.g., cheating on exams, plagiarizing essays) and students' perceptions of the severity of such behaviors is also lacking. We surveyed 1,032 university students and asked them whether they engaged in fraudulent behaviors and how severe they thought these behaviors were. The results showed that motivation, rationalization, and perceived capability dimensions of the Fraud Diamond theory are important factors in predicting the prevalence of students' academic fraudulent behavior, but not opportunity. We also found that the more students reported that they engaged in fraudulent academic behaviors, the less severe they perceived those behaviors to be. However, only rationalization emerged as a predictor of perceived severity. The results suggest that the more students are able to find justifications for their fraudulent behavior, the less severe they perceive those behaviors to be. Rationalization seems to explain, therefore, the tendency to disassociate moral values from dishonest behavior. Taken together, the study shows a vicious cycle between engaging in fraudulent academic behavior and the ability to justify these acts. Implications for Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are discussed.